Public report — booking-microservices, published 29 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 29-06-2026 @ 21:14 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Meysamhadeli/booking-Microservices

No regression coverage not measuredbounded contexts not declared
60% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
middle
Event-Driven 81% Exemplary Code Health 78% Adequate Domain Modelling 75% Adequate Security 74% Adequate Maturity 71% Adequate Architecture 64% Adequate Readiness 50% Adequate

Small · 6,756 LoC · 18 projects · rebuild ~0.2 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (50%)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

65/68dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
68findings with an exact file:lineof 185 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
68/103dimensions across the health lenses6756 LoC · 18 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.

meysamhadeli/booking-microservices carries serious risk (60%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (50%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Architecture (64%) is the next concern — the code resists change, so features cost more over time.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: 6 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene (Dependency Hygiene); Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate (Security & performance tooling); readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green)… (Deployment & Rollback).

For scale: Small (~6,756 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.2 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

Code Health 78% Adequate · gated by X4 Architecture 64% Adequate · gated by AX8 Maturity 71% Adequate · gated by D34 Readiness 50% Adequate · gated by D12 Security 74% Adequate · gated by D31 Domain Modelling 75% Adequate · gated by DM2 Event-Driven 81% ★ Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 50% · 46% weightArchitecture 64% · 25% weightMaturity 71% · 14% weightSecurity 74% · 8% weightDomain Modelling 75% · 4% weightCode Health 78% · 2% weightEvent-Driven 81% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 50 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 60 → ~68.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 3%Plumbing 37%Tests 47%Generated 13%
New since the last scan (7+)

7 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-29) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) src/Services/Booking/src/Booking/Extensions/Infrastructure/InfrastructureExtensions.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/CreatingFlight/V1/CreateFlight.cs
  • D5 · Off the main sequence: ServiceDefaults
  • ED4 · Dual write (no outbox): CreateBookingCommandHandler.Handle src/Services/Booking/src/Booking/Booking/Features/CreatingBook/V1/CreateBooking.cs
  • ED4 · Dual write (no outbox): RegisterNewUserHandler.Consume src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Identity/Consumers/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs
  • AX9 · Query handler writes persistent state: V1.ReserveSeatCommandHandler src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Seats/Features/ReservingSeat/V1/ReserveSeat.cs
  • DM4 · Anemic entity: BookingCreatedDomainEvent src/Services/Booking/src/Booking/Booking/Features/CreatingBook/V1/CreateBooking.cs

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €9,500–€48,000
Cost to rebuild€9,500–€48,000 (0.1–0.3 person-years (159–502 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityVery high — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.8× (at 60% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 44% boilerplate · 48% straight-line · 8% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€29,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 50% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×2.1) — microservices, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, domain model, event-driven integration × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

1
Resolve the 6 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+9.2 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
2
Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+8.0 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
3
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
+9.2 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 50%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.2 person-years rebuild (6,756 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 50%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain · Medium · Root cause
32 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.
Evidence: DM5 setters: 0 · DM4 anemic: 1 · DM2 primitive ids: 31
→ Address encapsulation as one pattern (private setters + behaviour + strongly-typed ids), not 100 separate findings.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 6 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Resolve the 6 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+9.9 pts/run over 4 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +9.9 pts/run over 4 runs

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 60 ▲ 8 over 4 runs.

025507510029 Junnow
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurity

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

arch ApiGateway ApiGateway AppHost AppHost AppHost->ApiGateway Booking.Api Api AppHost->Booking.Api Flight.Api Api AppHost->Flight.Api Identity.Api Api AppHost->Identity.Api Passenger.Api Api AppHost->Passenger.Api Booking Booking ServiceDefaults ServiceDefaults Booking->ServiceDefaults Booking.Api->Booking Flight Flight Flight->ServiceDefaults Flight.Api->Flight Identity Identity Identity->ServiceDefaults Identity.Api->Identity MicroBootstrap.Persistence.Mongo Mongo Passenger Passenger Passenger->ServiceDefaults Passenger.Api->Passenger

At a glance — Code Health · 78% · Adequate · gated by X4

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.9 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 8.0 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 9.8 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 8.5 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.8
The Ugly
X4 · Repo Structured logging 3.5

At a glance — Architecture · 64% · Adequate · gated by AX8

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.5 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 7.8 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.7 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 7.2 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX7 · Repo Slice cohesion 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 8.6
The Ugly
AX8 · Repo Test isolation 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 71% · Adequate · gated by D34

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 8.6 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 9.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 6.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 1.9

At a glance — Readiness · 50% · Adequate · gated by D12

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.1 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 6.8 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 7.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0
The Bad
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 1.9

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D31

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 7.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D33 · .NET / C# JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities 10.0 D38 · .NET / C# OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.2 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0
The Bad
D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 5.1 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 6.5
The Ugly
D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 75% · Adequate · gated by DM2

The Good
DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 10.0 DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 9.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0
The Ugly
DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 3.0

At a glance — Event-Driven · 81% · Exemplary

The Good
ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED2 · Repo Event/command shape 10.0 ED3 · Repo Event naming 8.2
The Bad
ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 5.7

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration50High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components24High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures1Medium

Roadmap

First, resolve the six deprecated dependencies to address critical hygiene gaps. Next, enable automated dependency updates and review gates to improve security and performance tooling. Then, implement readiness and liveness probes with a rolling-update strategy to ensure automatic rollback of bad releases. Additionally, maintain a changelog to track each release, and extend structured logging across all service-like projects to ensure full observability in production.

Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 6 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+9.2 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+8.0 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.+9.2 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.+9.2 ptsMediumDeployment & Rollback
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+9.2 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.+9.0 ptsMediumObservability
Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).+9.0 ptsMediumDR & Backup
Remove every production → test project reference: extract any shared test helper into a production support library (which the tests reference), or invert the dependency so the test project depends on production — not the reverse.+2.8 ptsMediumTest isolation

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 14 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 14% mixed · 86% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
package-lock.json2.1MixedOSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: [GHSA redacted]
deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml4.4MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014
src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Data/DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs7.8Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs ↔ IdentityContext.cs
src/BuildingBlocks/EFCore/AppDbContextBase.cs8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: AppDbContextBase.cs ↔ DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs
src/BuildingBlocks/EventStoreDB/Events/AggregateStreamExtensions.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/BuildingBlocks/PersistMessageProcessor/Extensions.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/BuildingBlocks/TestBase/TestBase.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/BuildingBlocks/Utils/TypeProvider.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: IsRecord
src/Services/Booking/src/Booking/Extensions/Infrastructure/InfrastructureExtensions.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 3)
src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/CreatingFlight/V1/CreateFlight.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)
src/Services/Flight/tests/UnitTest/Flight/FlightMappingTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: should_support_mapping_from_source_to_destination
src/Services/Flight/tests/UnitTest/Seat/SeatMappingTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: should_support_mapping_from_source_to_destination
src/BuildingBlocks/OpenTelemetryCollector/CoreDiagnostics/Commands/CommandHandlerActivity.cs9.5Near-cleanComment Value: redundant comment
src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/FlightMappings.cs9.5Near-cleanIL Efficiency: IL efficiency: 8 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 65 of 68 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 68 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D33D34D35D38D39AX1AX10AX3AX4AX5AX7AX8AX9C2DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM8ED1ED2ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P6P7P8S1X1X2X3X4X5

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 68 of 185 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f153b-f215-7457-8e53-bf88e6aa3e8e.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D21, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3)src/Services/Booking/src/Booking/Extensions/Infrastructure/InfrastructureExtensions.cs:37
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/CreatingFlight/V1/CreateFlight.cs:82

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D5 · Coupling9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

15 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

Off the main sequence: ServiceDefaults

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 3 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

35 test methods: 20 unit, 15 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 2 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 35 tests.

No assertions: should_support_mapping_from_source_to_destination · ×2src/Services/Flight/tests/UnitTest/Flight/FlightMappingTests.cs:30
Mock framework: NSubstitute

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 3 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene1.9 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

78 outdated, 2 vulnerable, 6 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol · ×2
Deprecated: CSharpGuidelinesAnalyzer · ×6
Outdated: Meziantou.Analyzer · ×78

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  3. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D13 · Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 110 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

8 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/BuildingBlocks/TestBase/TestBase.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 deducted debt markers + 1 dead symbols across 5496 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9.

TodoComment · ×3src/BuildingBlocks/EventStoreDB/Events/AggregateStreamExtensions.cs:22
Dead code: IsRecordsrc/BuildingBlocks/Utils/TypeProvider.cs:9

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D18 · Solution Shape8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

18 projects, 411 .cs files, 13405 hand-written lines of code (5496 production / 7909 test), plus 2128 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 40 inter-project edges.

Monorepo: only 1 of 5 solutions was scored
Thin analysable surface across projects

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Monorepo finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

32 valuable / 1 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentsrc/BuildingBlocks/OpenTelemetryCollector/CoreDiagnostics/Commands/CommandHandlerActivity.cs:27

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 18 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split Flight

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Split Flight finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D27 · Navigability9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

98 % of calls cross a namespace and 2 % go through an interface, but 95 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities5.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.

Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

19 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 16 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: Snappier 1.0.0 · ×3detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: KubernetesClient 15.0.1 · ×16detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 16 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

358 finding(s): 0 critical, 67 high, 94 medium, 197 low.

High IaC: KSV-0014 · ×50deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.ymldetected by trivy finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 50 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with booking-microservices.yml (50). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (50 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether JavaScript/npm dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) — the npm ecosystem's biggest risk.

Method: JS/npm CVE scan via trivy fs --scanners vuln over JS manifests (package.json/yarn.lock/pnpm-lock/bun.lockb); 0-10 tight normalizer. NotApplicable without JS manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d33_recommendation.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness1.9 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

49 of 61 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/BuildingBlocks/OpenTelemetryCollector/TelemetryTags.cs.

Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs↔IdentityContext.cs 50%; DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs↔PassengerDbContext.cs 50%; AppDbContextBase.cs↔DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs 50%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: AppDbContextBase.cs ↔ DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cssrc/BuildingBlocks/EFCore/AppDbContextBase.cs
Change coupling: DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs ↔ IdentityContext.cs · ×2src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Data/DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — npm and other lockfile ecosystems, parsed natively. Complements D33 (npm via trivy) and D30 (.NET via dotnet).

Method: npm/multi-ecosystem CVE scan via osv-scanner (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively: package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable without a JS lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 3 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×2package-lock.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×3package-lock.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Medium CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d38_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D39 · IL Efficiency9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

8 of 683 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 8 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetsrc/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/FlightMappings.cs:16

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX10 · Code composition7.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

AX7 · Slice cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.

Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.

AX8 · Test isolation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

  • `ApiGateway` (production) references the test project `BuildingBlocks`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Booking` (production) references the test project `BuildingBlocks`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Flight` (production) references the test project `BuildingBlocks`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Identity` (production) references the test project `BuildingBlocks`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Passenger` (production) references the test project `BuildingBlocks`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `ServiceDefaults` (production) references the test project `BuildingBlocks`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.

What to do

  • Remove every production → test project reference: extract any shared test helper into a production support library (which the tests reference), or invert the dependency so the test project depends on production — not the reverse.
AX9 · CQS / query purity8.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

  • `V1.ReserveSeatCommandHandler` is a read (query) handler but its body writes persistent state — a query must stay side-effect-free so reads are safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica. — ReserveSeat.cs:73

What to do

  • Keep query handlers read-only — move the writes/event-publishes into a command handler so reads stay safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica.
C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — How much of the domain uses strongly-typed ids vs raw Guid/string/int — adoption curve, not all-or-nothing.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Coverage: Population: id-like members by *Id/*Key NAME suffix; strongly-typed-ID shape then checked semantically — non-suffixed identifiers are not seen.

  • `CreateFlight.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:26
  • `CreateFlight.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:26
  • `CreateFlight.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:27
  • `FlightCreatedDomainEvent.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:36
  • `FlightCreatedDomainEvent.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:37
  • `FlightCreatedDomainEvent.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:37
  • `CreateFlightMongo.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlightMongo.cs:17
  • `CreateFlightMongo.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlightMongo.cs:18
  • `CreateFlightMongo.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlightMongo.cs:18
  • `FlightDeletedDomainEvent.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — DeleteFlight.cs:24
  • `FlightDeletedDomainEvent.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — DeleteFlight.cs:26
  • `FlightDeletedDomainEvent.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — DeleteFlight.cs:28
  • `DeleteFlightMongo.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — DeleteFlightMongo.cs:17
  • `DeleteFlightMongo.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — DeleteFlightMongo.cs:18
  • `DeleteFlightMongo.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — DeleteFlightMongo.cs:18
  • `UpdateFlight.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:26
  • `UpdateFlight.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:26
  • `UpdateFlight.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:27
  • `UpdateFlight.CacheKey` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CacheKey { String Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:31
  • `FlightUpdatedDomainEvent.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:36
  • `FlightUpdatedDomainEvent.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:37
  • `FlightUpdatedDomainEvent.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:37
  • `UpdateFlightMongo.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlightMongo.cs:17
  • `UpdateFlightMongo.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlightMongo.cs:18
  • `UpdateFlightMongo.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlightMongo.cs:18
  • `CreateSeat.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — CreateSeat.cs:27
  • `SeatCreatedDomainEvent.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — CreateSeat.cs:36
  • `CreateSeatMongo.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — CreateSeatMongo.cs:18
  • `ReserveSeat.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — ReserveSeat.cs:22
  • `SeatReservedDomainEvent.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — ReserveSeat.cs:27
  • `ReserveSeatMongo.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — ReserveSeatMongo.cs:16

What to do

  • Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

  • `BookingCreatedDomainEvent` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — CreateBooking.cs:31

What to do

  • Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state (private/init-only setters) instead of exposing public setters that bypass invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): public setters on entities detected; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

ED2 · Event/command shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether commands have a single handler (one owner of the decision) and fan-out is modelled with events.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): command-shaped messages identified by convention; handler count per command checked for the exactly-one rule. Deterministic, hard fact.

ED3 · Event naming8.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge — low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

  • `CreateAircraft` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CreateAircraft.cs:26
  • `CreateAircraftMongo` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CreateAircraftMongo.cs:18
  • `CreateAirport` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CreateAirport.cs:24
  • `CreateAirportMongo` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CreateAirportMongo.cs:17
  • `CreateFlight` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CreateFlight.cs:26
  • `CreateFlightMongo` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CreateFlightMongo.cs:17
  • `DeleteFlight` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — DeleteFlight.cs:17
  • `DeleteFlightMongo` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — DeleteFlightMongo.cs:17
  • `UpdateFlight` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — UpdateFlight.cs:26
  • `UpdateFlightMongo` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — UpdateFlightMongo.cs:17
  • `CreateSeat` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CreateSeat.cs:26
  • `CreateSeatMongo` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CreateSeatMongo.cs:17
  • `ReserveSeat` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — ReserveSeat.cs:22
  • `ReserveSeatMongo` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — ReserveSeatMongo.cs:15
  • `CompleteRegisterPassenger` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CompleteRegisterPassenger.cs:22
  • `CompleteRegisterPassengerMongoCommand` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — CompleteRegisterPassengerMongo.cs:14

What to do

  • Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write5.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

  • `CreateBookingCommandHandler.Handle` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern (e.g. MassTransit's EF/Marten outbox) so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — CreateBooking.cs:97
  • `RegisterNewUserHandler.Consume` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern (e.g. MassTransit's EF/Marten outbox) so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — RegisterNewUser.cs:34

What to do

  • Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.
ED5 · Idempotency10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.

Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 18 of 18 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

  • Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
  • Only 4/18 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
  • Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P2 · Observability6.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • Only 3/11 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
  • Add a health-check endpoint (AddHealthChecks/MapHealthChecks) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.
P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

  • Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

What to do

  • Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Roslyn scan: Polly resilience markers (Retry, CircuitBreaker, Timeout) on outbound HTTP invocations. Computed per type, deterministic.

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

S1 · Web-Security Posture6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)

What to do

  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

X2 · Cancellation propagation8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 30/40 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×10) — FlightDataSeeder.cs:19, FlightDataSeeder.cs:32, FlightDataSeeder.cs:46, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

X4 · Structured logging3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.

  • Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. — RegisterNewUser.cs:38

What to do

  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

  • ~0.3 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

  • Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health78%Adequate — gated by X4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture64%Adequate — gated by AX8Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity71%Adequate — gated by D34Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness50%Adequate — gated by D12Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security74%Adequate — gated by D31Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling75%Adequate — gated by DM2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven81%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Not included — 36 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • C1 Data Protection — This is a dotnet-new template — at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
  • C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data (event-sourced storage — lifecycle is stream archival / event TTL, not row CASCADE) — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
  • DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): an event-store package (Marten/EventStore); 1 projection(s)
  • M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Issue — 58 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×50
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0014 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Root file system is not read-only
  • High IaC: KSV-0118 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Default security context configured
  • High IaC: KSV-0118 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Default security context configured
  • High IaC: KSV-0118 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Default security context configured
  • High IaC: KSV-0118 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Default security context configured
  • High IaC: KSV-0118 deployments/kubernetes/booking-microservices.yml — Default security context configured
  • + 25 more in this group — see findings.md.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×3
  • High CVE: Snappier 1.0.0 — Snappier 1.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 18 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×2
  • Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0 — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Zipkin — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Zipkin 1.15.0 — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×2
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json — fast-uri: [GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json — fast-uri: [GHSA redacted]
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: AppDbContextBase.cs ↔ DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs src/BuildingBlocks/EFCore/AppDbContextBase.cs — `src/BuildingBlocks/EFCore/AppDbContextBase.cs` (context BuildingBlocks) and `src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Data/DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs` (context Services) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (10 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
Warning — 39 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×16
  • Medium CVE: KubernetesClient 15.0.1 — KubernetesClient 15.0.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 17 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Api 1.15.0 — OpenTelemetry.Api 1.15.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 17 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0 — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 17 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0 — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 17 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0 — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 17 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Zipkin 1.15.0 — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Zipkin 1.15.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 17 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.30.1 — SharpCompress 0.30.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 18 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×6
  • Deprecated: CSharpGuidelinesAnalyzer — CSharpGuidelinesAnalyzer 3.8.5 — Legacy
  • Deprecated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore — FluentValidation.AspNetCore 11.3.1 — Legacy
  • Deprecated: xunit.extensibility.core — xunit.extensibility.core 2.9.3 — Legacy xunit.v3.extensibility.core >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.9.3 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: CommunityToolkit.Aspire.Hosting.EventStore — CommunityToolkit.Aspire.Hosting.EventStore 9.9.0 — Legacy CommunityToolkit.Aspire.Hosting.KurrentDB >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: Elastic.Aspire.Hosting.Elasticsearch — Elastic.Aspire.Hosting.Elasticsearch 9.3.0 — Other Aspire.Hosting.Elasticsearch >= 0.0.0
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×3
  • TodoComment src/BuildingBlocks/EventStoreDB/Events/AggregateStreamExtensions.cs:22 — // TODO: consider adding extension method for the aggregation and deserialization — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/BuildingBlocks/PersistMessageProcessor/Extensions.cs:38 — // Todo: follow up the issues of .net 9 to use better approach taht will provide by .net! — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/BuildingBlocks/TestBase/TestBase.cs:294 — //todo: provide better approach for reading `PostgresOptions` — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×3
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json — ajv: [GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json — js-yaml: [GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json — js-yaml: [GHSA redacted]
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×2
  • No assertions: should_support_mapping_from_source_to_destination src/Services/Flight/tests/UnitTest/Flight/FlightMappingTests.cs:30 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: should_support_mapping_from_source_to_destination src/Services/Flight/tests/UnitTest/Seat/SeatMappingTests.cs:32 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2
  • Change coupling: DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs ↔ IdentityContext.cs src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Data/DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs — `src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Data/DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs` and `src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Data/IdentityContext.cs` change together 50% of the time (10 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs ↔ PassengerDbContext.cs src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Data/DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs — `src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Data/DesignTimeDbContextFactory.cs` and `src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Data/PassengerDbContext.cs` change together 50% of the time (10 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×1
  • Dead code: IsRecord src/BuildingBlocks/Utils/TypeProvider.cs:9 — Method IsRecord — no references found in solution.
D18 · Solution Shape · Monorepo · ×1
  • Monorepo: only 1 of 5 solutions was scored — This repository contains 5 .NET solutions, but a scan analyzes ONE. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `booking-microservices.sln` — the other 4 (`src/Services/Booking/tests/tests.sln`, `src/Services/Flight/tests/tests.sln`, `src/Services/Identity/tests/tests.sln`, `src/Services/Passenger/tests/tests.sln`) were not analyzed and are not represented in the headline. To cover them, scan each solution as its own target and group them in a Solution or Product for a portfolio roll-up. If a secondary solution is an archived or vendored tree, declare it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — to exclude it from discovery the same way generated code is.
D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM evaluation failed · ×1
  • LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.findings[0].issue | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1146.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) src/Services/Booking/src/Booking/Extensions/Infrastructure/InfrastructureExtensions.cs:37 — src/Services/Booking/src/Booking/Extensions/Infrastructure/InfrastructureExtensions.cs:37-48 | src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Extensions/Infrastructure/InfrastructureExtensions.cs:35-45 | src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Extensions/Infrastructure/InfrastructureExtensions.cs:39-50
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/CreatingFlight/V1/CreateFlight.cs:82 — src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/CreatingFlight/V1/CreateFlight.cs:82-90 | src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/UpdatingFlight/V1/UpdateFlight.cs:79-87
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: ServiceDefaults — ServiceDefaults: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.08, distance 0.92 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 8 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 8 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner (largest: src/BuildingBlocks/TestBase/TestBase.cs). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects — 6 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Identity.Api` with 14 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 75 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 2.0 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 5496 LoC spread over 18 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment src/BuildingBlocks/OpenTelemetryCollector/CoreDiagnostics/Commands/CommandHandlerActivity.cs:27 — "usually we use class/methodName" — delete - restates the code, not WHY
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split Flight · ×1
  • Split Flight — A generic catch-all name that is huge (27k LoC) and sprawls over 39 unrelated namespaces. Suggested: by namespace: Airports, Routes, Vectors
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — Some of these secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each historically-exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks. (Working-tree-only secrets — no commit — can instead be removed from the file and moved to a secret store.)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 49 of 61 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 49 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1
  • IL efficiency: 8 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/FlightMappings.cs:16 — 8 of 683 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Flight.Flights.Features.FlightMappings.Register @ src/Services/Flight/src/Flight/Flights/Features/FlightMappings.cs:16, 666 IL instructions; large bodies don't JIT-inline, which pulled this dimension to 9.8/10; splitting the hottest bodies recovers the most.
Info — 80 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×78
  • Outdated: Meziantou.Analyzer — Meziantou.Analyzer 2.0.299 → 3.0.117 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.VisualStudio.Threading.Analyzers — Microsoft.VisualStudio.Threading.Analyzers 17.14.15 → 18.7.23 available.
  • Outdated: Grpc.Tools — Grpc.Tools 2.78.0 → 2.81.1 available.
  • Outdated: Grpc.AspNetCore — Grpc.AspNetCore 2.76.0 → 2.80.0 available.
  • Outdated: Grpc.Net.Client — Grpc.Net.Client 2.76.0 → 2.80.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design 10.0.3 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Abstractions — Asp.Versioning.Abstractions 8.1.0 → 10.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Http — Asp.Versioning.Http 8.1.1 → 10.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Mvc — Asp.Versioning.Mvc 8.1.1 → 10.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Mvc.ApiExplorer — Asp.Versioning.Mvc.ApiExplorer 8.1.1 → 10.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: Duende.IdentityServer — Duende.IdentityServer 7.4.5 → 8.0.2 available.
  • Outdated: Duende.IdentityServer.AspNetIdentity — Duende.IdentityServer.AspNetIdentity 7.4.5 → 8.0.2 available.
  • Outdated: Duende.IdentityServer.EntityFramework — Duende.IdentityServer.EntityFramework 7.4.5 → 8.0.2 available.
  • Outdated: Duende.IdentityServer.EntityFramework.Storage — Duende.IdentityServer.EntityFramework.Storage 7.4.5 → 8.0.2 available.
  • Outdated: Figgle — Figgle 0.6.5 → 0.6.6 available.
  • Outdated: Figgle.Fonts — Figgle.Fonts 0.6.5 → 0.6.6 available.
  • Outdated: FluentAssertions — FluentAssertions 8.8.0 → 8.10.0 available.
  • Outdated: Google.Protobuf — Google.Protobuf 3.33.5 → 3.35.1 available.
  • Outdated: Grafana.OpenTelemetry — Grafana.OpenTelemetry 1.5.2 → 1.9.0 available.
  • Outdated: Grpc.Net.ClientFactory — Grpc.Net.ClientFactory 2.76.0 → 2.80.0 available.
  • Outdated: Humanizer.Core — Humanizer.Core 3.0.1 → 3.0.10 available.
  • Outdated: Mapster — Mapster 7.4.0 → 10.0.10 available.
  • Outdated: Mapster.DependencyInjection — Mapster.DependencyInjection 1.0.1 → 10.0.10 available.
  • Outdated: MassTransit — MassTransit 8.5.8 → 9.1.2 available.
  • Outdated: MassTransit.RabbitMQ — MassTransit.RabbitMQ 8.5.8 → 9.1.2 available.
  • + 53 more in this group — see findings.md.
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — BuildingBlocks references NSubstitute.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .3artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list booking-microservices.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json19artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .358artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive .5artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 019f153b-f215-7457-8e53-bf88e6aa3e8e · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 25 field(s) across 3 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Government ID (SSN / passport / tax) — 13 field(s)
  • RegisterNewUser.PassportNumber src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:27
  • RegisterNewUserResult.PassportNumber src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:29
  • RegisterNewUserRequestDto.PassportNumber src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:32
  • RegisterNewUserResponseDto.PassportNumber src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:35
  • User.PassPortNumber src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Models/User.cs:12
  • PassengerCreatedDomainEvent.PassportNumber src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Identity/Consumers/RegisteringNewUser/V1/PassengerCreatedDomainEvent.cs:5
  • PassengerDto.PassportNumber src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Passengers/Dtos/PassengerDto.cs:3
  • CompleteRegisterPassenger.PassportNumber src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Passengers/Features/CompletingRegisterPassenger/V1/CompleteRegisterPassenger.cs:22
  • PassengerRegistrationCompletedDomainEvent.PassportNumber src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Passengers/Features/CompletingRegisterPassenger/V1/CompleteRegisterPassenger.cs:32
  • CompleteRegisterPassengerRequestDto.PassportNumber src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Passengers/Features/CompletingRegisterPassenger/V1/CompleteRegisterPassenger.cs:40
  • CompleteRegisterPassengerMongoCommand.PassportNumber src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Passengers/Features/CompletingRegisterPassenger/V1/CompleteRegisterPassengerMongo.cs:14
  • Passenger.PassportNumber src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Passengers/Models/Passenger.cs:11
  • PassengerReadModel.PassportNumber src/Services/Passenger/src/Passenger/Passengers/Models/PassengerReadModel.cs:7
Name — 10 field(s)
  • RegisterNewUser.FirstName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:26
  • RegisterNewUser.LastName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:26
  • RegisterNewUserResult.FirstName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:29
  • RegisterNewUserResult.LastName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:29
  • RegisterNewUserRequestDto.FirstName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:31
  • RegisterNewUserRequestDto.LastName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:31
  • RegisterNewUserResponseDto.FirstName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:34
  • RegisterNewUserResponseDto.LastName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:34
  • User.FirstName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Models/User.cs:10
  • User.LastName src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Models/User.cs:11
Email — 2 field(s)
  • RegisterNewUser.Email src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:26
  • RegisterNewUserRequestDto.Email src/Services/Identity/src/Identity/Identity/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:31

Issues: 58 · Warnings: 39 · Recommendations: 8 · Info: 80 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 29-06-2026 @ 21:14 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md