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-monolith carries serious risk (65%). 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 (52%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.
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 (~6,518 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.2 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
Raise Readiness 52 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 65 → ~73.
New since the last scan (7+)
- D4 · Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) src/BookingMonolith/src/Flight/Data/EfTxFlightBehavior.cs
- D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/BookingMonolith/src/Flight/Flights/Features/CreatingFlight/V1/CreateFlight.cs
- D5 · Off the main sequence: ServiceDefaults
- ED4 · Dual write (no outbox): CreateBookingCommandHandler.Handle src/BookingMonolith/src/Booking/Bookings/Features/CreatingBook/V1/CreateBooking.cs
- ED4 · Dual write (no outbox): RegisterNewUserHandler.Consume src/BookingMonolith/src/Passenger/Identity/Consumers/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs
- AX9 · Query handler writes persistent state: V1.ReserveSeatCommandHandler src/BookingMonolith/src/Flight/Seats/Features/ReservingSeat/V1/ReserveSeat.cs
- DM4 · Anemic entity: BookingCreatedDomainEvent src/BookingMonolith/src/Booking/Bookings/Features/CreatingBook/V1/CreateBooking.cs
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €8,900–€45,000
| Cost to rebuild | €8,900–€45,000 |
| Domain complexity | Very high |
| Quality factor | 0.9× (at 65% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 42% boilerplate · 48% straight-line · 11% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€27,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 52% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Trajectory
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Domain Modelling
At a glance — Event-Driven
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 24 | High / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, resolve the six deprecated dependencies to improve hygiene. Next, enable automated dependency scanning and review gates to enhance security and performance tooling. Then, implement readiness probes and rolling update strategies to ensure safe deployments and automatic rollbacks. After that, extend structured logging across all service-like projects to improve observability. Finally, document recovery time and objectives alongside a tested restore procedure to complete disaster recovery planning.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 6 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +11.1 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +9.3 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with Tests.cs. | +5.7 pts | Low | Test Quality |
| Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate. | +11.1 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically. | +11.1 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production. | +10.9 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery). | +10.8 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Improve Test Distribution — currently 8.5/10. | +2.3 pts | Medium | Test Distribution |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| package-lock.json | 2.1 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| src/BookingMonolith/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/BookingMonolith/tests/Integration.Test/Tests.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): Test1 |
| src/BuildingBlocks/EventStoreDB/Events/AggregateStreamExtensions.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/BuildingBlocks/PersistMessageProcessor/Extensions.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/BuildingBlocks/TestBase/TestBase.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/BuildingBlocks/Utils/TypeProvider.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: Dead code: IsRecord |
| src/BookingMonolith/src/Flight/Data/EfTxFlightBehavior.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) |
| src/BookingMonolith/src/Flight/Flights/Features/CreatingFlight/V1/CreateFlight.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) |
| src/BookingMonolith/tests/Integration.Test/Integration.Test.csproj | 9.5 | Near-clean | Solution Shape: Shell project: Integration.Test |
| src/BookingMonolith/src/Flight/Flights/Features/FlightMappings.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | IL Efficiency: IL efficiency: 6 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. 62 of 65 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 0.7 — 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.
What we checked — 65 dimensions across the health lenses
- 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, 20 of 134 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- 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.
- 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.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D24 Comment Value — 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.
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
- 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.
- 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.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D4 · Code Duplication
2 duplicated block group(s) detected.
D5 · Coupling
6 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 3 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
D9 · Test Distribution
1 test methods: 0 unit, 1 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
What to do
- Improve Test Distribution — currently 8.5/10. — 1 test methods: 0 unit, 1 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 1 tests.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with Tests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). integration: measured (0 flaky).
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
75 outdated, 2 vulnerable, 6 deprecated packages.
What to do
- Resolve the 6 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 107 packages use a banned license.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D17 · Explicit Debt
3 deducted debt markers + 1 dead symbols across 5201 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8.
D18 · Solution Shape
6 projects, 336 .cs files, 11282 hand-written lines of code (5201 production / 6081 test), plus 2191 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 10 inter-project edges.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with Integration.Test.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D19 · Documentation Quality
The Booking Monolith README is a strong single document with an excellent table of contents listing every section (Goals, Technologies - Libraries, Key Features, When to Use, Challenges, The Domain and Bounded Context, Structure of Project, Development Setup, How to Run, Documentation Apis, Support, Contribution) plus the project's GitHub Codespaces link. It is a single cohesive README for a monolith that also links out to an alternative microservices version, which is good practice. However it shows no XML documentation coverage (0/6 for the main package and 0/3 for ServiceDefaults), so any API reference or migration guidance beyond the inline dotnet-ef commands would fall below the scope of this document.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The Booking Monolith README is a strong single document with an excellent table of contents listing every section (Goals, Technologies - Libraries, Key Features, When to Use, Challenges, The Domain and Bounded Context, Structure of Project, Development Setup, How to Run, Documentation Apis, Support, Contribution) plus the project's GitHub Codespaces link. It is a single cohesive README for a monolith that also links out to an alternative microservices version, which is good practice. However it shows no XML documentation coverage (0/6 for the main package and 0/3 for ServiceDefaults), so any API reference or migration guidance beyond the inline dotnet-ef commands would fall below the scope of this document.
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
2 of 6 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Split BuildingBlocks finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D27 · Navigability
94 % of calls cross a namespace and 7 % go through an interface, but 99 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
19 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 16 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 16 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 1 low.
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
5 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 3 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- 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).
- 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).
D39 · IL Efficiency
6 of 435 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
AX10 · Code composition
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
AX5 · Architecture & structure
AX7 · Slice cohesion
AX8 · Test isolation
- `BookingMonolith` (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 purity
- `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:70
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 Controls
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
DM2 · Strongly-typed ids
- `CreateFlight.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:23
- `CreateFlight.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:23
- `CreateFlight.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:24
- `FlightCreatedDomainEvent.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:33
- `FlightCreatedDomainEvent.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:34
- `FlightCreatedDomainEvent.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlight.cs:34
- `CreateFlightMongo.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlightMongo.cs:14
- `CreateFlightMongo.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlightMongo.cs:15
- `CreateFlightMongo.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — CreateFlightMongo.cs:15
- `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:14
- `DeleteFlightMongo.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — DeleteFlightMongo.cs:15
- `DeleteFlightMongo.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — DeleteFlightMongo.cs:15
- `UpdateFlight.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:23
- `UpdateFlight.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:23
- `UpdateFlight.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:24
- `UpdateFlight.CacheKey` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CacheKey { String Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:28
- `FlightUpdatedDomainEvent.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:33
- `FlightUpdatedDomainEvent.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:34
- `FlightUpdatedDomainEvent.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlight.cs:34
- `UpdateFlightMongo.AircraftId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AircraftId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlightMongo.cs:14
- `UpdateFlightMongo.DepartureAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct DepartureAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlightMongo.cs:15
- `UpdateFlightMongo.ArriveAirportId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ArriveAirportId { Guid Value }`). — UpdateFlightMongo.cs:15
- `CreateSeat.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — CreateSeat.cs:24
- `SeatCreatedDomainEvent.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — CreateSeat.cs:33
- `CreateSeatMongo.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — CreateSeatMongo.cs:15
- `ReserveSeat.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — ReserveSeat.cs:19
- `SeatReservedDomainEvent.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — ReserveSeat.cs:24
- `ReserveSeatMongo.FlightId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FlightId { Guid Value }`). — ReserveSeatMongo.cs:13
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 model
- `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:33
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 state
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
ED1 · Handler temporal coupling
ED2 · Event/command shape
ED3 · Event naming
- `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:22
- `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:14
- `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:21
- `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:14
- `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:23
- `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:14
- `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:14
- `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:23
- `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:14
- `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:23
- `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:14
- `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:19
- `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:12
- `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-write
- `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:96
- `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 · Idempotency
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add a README to the 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
- Only 1/6 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 accuracy
- README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists.
P1 · CI/CD gates
P2 · Observability
- Only 1/4 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 tooling
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 & Rollback
- 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 & Backup
What to do
- Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience
P8 · Schema migrations
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- 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 correctness
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 33/43 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 handling
X4 · Structured logging
- 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 types
- ~0.5 `!` 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
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 84% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 76% | Adequate — gated by D26 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 74% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Readiness | 52% | Adequate — gated by D12 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 81% | Strong | Solid. |
| Domain Modelling | 75% | Adequate — gated by DM2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Event-Driven | 81% | Exemplary | Solid. |
Not included — 39 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- 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.
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- 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
- D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
- 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.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- 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
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- 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)
Issue — 9 finding(s)
- High CVE: Snappier 1.0.0
- High CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- High CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol
- Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Zipkin
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
- No assertions (empty test): Test1 src/BookingMonolith/tests/Integration.Test/Tests.cs:7
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/BookingMonolith/Dockerfile
Warning — 35 finding(s)
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.0
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Zipkin 1.15.0
- Medium CVE: KubernetesClient 15.0.1
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Api 1.15.0
- Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.30.1
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Deprecated: CSharpGuidelinesAnalyzer
- Deprecated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore
- Deprecated: xunit.extensibility.core
- Deprecated: xunit
- Deprecated: CommunityToolkit.Aspire.Hosting.EventStore
- Deprecated: Elastic.Aspire.Hosting.Elasticsearch
- TodoComment src/BuildingBlocks/EventStoreDB/Events/AggregateStreamExtensions.cs:22
- TodoComment src/BuildingBlocks/PersistMessageProcessor/Extensions.cs:38
- TodoComment src/BuildingBlocks/TestBase/TestBase.cs:266
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] package-lock.json
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- Dead code: IsRecord src/BuildingBlocks/Utils/TypeProvider.cs:9
- LLM evaluation failed
- Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) src/BookingMonolith/src/Flight/Data/EfTxFlightBehavior.cs:64
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/BookingMonolith/src/Flight/Flights/Features/CreatingFlight/V1/CreateFlight.cs:79
- Off the main sequence: ServiceDefaults
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 7 finding(s)
- Shell project: Integration.Test src/BookingMonolith/tests/Integration.Test/Integration.Test.csproj
- Thin analysable surface across projects
- Bounded contexts not declared
- Split BuildingBlocks
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/BookingMonolith/Dockerfile
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- IL efficiency: 6 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget src/BookingMonolith/src/Flight/Flights/Features/FlightMappings.cs:16
Info — 83 finding(s)
- Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Abstractions
- Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Http
- Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Mvc
- Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Mvc.ApiExplorer
- Outdated: Duende.IdentityServer
- Outdated: Duende.IdentityServer.AspNetIdentity
- Outdated: Duende.IdentityServer.EntityFramework
- Outdated: Duende.IdentityServer.EntityFramework.Storage
- Outdated: Figgle
- Outdated: Figgle.Fonts
- Outdated: FluentAssertions
- Outdated: Google.Protobuf
- Outdated: Grafana.OpenTelemetry
- Outdated: Grpc.Net.ClientFactory
- Outdated: Humanizer.Core
- Outdated: Mapster
- Outdated: Mapster.DependencyInjection
- Outdated: MassTransit
- Outdated: MassTransit.RabbitMQ
- Outdated: MediatR
- Outdated: Meziantou.Analyzer
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Testing
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi
- XML-doc coverage: Api src/Api/src/Api.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: BookingMonolith src/BookingMonolith/src/BookingMonolith.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: AppHost src/Aspire/src/AppHost/AppHost.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: ServiceDefaults src/Aspire/src/ServiceDefaults/ServiceDefaults.csproj
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
- git history depth insufficient
- No exposed public API
- git history depth insufficient
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list booking-monolith.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 19 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 2 | artifacts/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 Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | 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 Policy | disclosure | — | 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 Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 5 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Government ID (SSN / passport / tax) — 13 field(s)
- RegisterNewUser.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:22
- RegisterNewUserResult.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:24
- RegisterNewUserRequestDto.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:27
- RegisterNewUserResponseDto.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:30
- User.PassPortNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Models/User.cs:10
- PassengerCreatedDomainEvent.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Passenger/Identity/Consumers/RegisteringNewUser/V1/PassengerCreatedDomainEvent.cs:5
- PassengerDto.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Passenger/Passengers/Dtos/PassengerDto.cs:3
- CompleteRegisterPassenger.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Passenger/Passengers/Features/CompletingRegisterPassenger/V1/CompleteRegisterPassenger.cs:23
- PassengerRegistrationCompletedDomainEvent.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Passenger/Passengers/Features/CompletingRegisterPassenger/V1/CompleteRegisterPassenger.cs:29
- CompleteRegisterPassengerRequestDto.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Passenger/Passengers/Features/CompletingRegisterPassenger/V1/CompleteRegisterPassenger.cs:34
- CompleteRegisterPassengerMongoCommand.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Passenger/Passengers/Features/CompletingRegisterPassenger/V1/CompleteRegisterPassengerMongo.cs:14
- Passenger.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Passenger/Passengers/Models/Passenger.cs:10
- PassengerReadModel.PassportNumber src/BookingMonolith/src/Passenger/Passengers/Models/PassengerReadModel.cs:7
Name — 10 field(s)
- RegisterNewUser.FirstName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:21
- RegisterNewUser.LastName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:21
- RegisterNewUserResult.FirstName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:24
- RegisterNewUserResult.LastName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:24
- RegisterNewUserRequestDto.FirstName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:26
- RegisterNewUserRequestDto.LastName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:26
- RegisterNewUserResponseDto.FirstName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:29
- RegisterNewUserResponseDto.LastName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:29
- User.FirstName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Models/User.cs:8
- User.LastName src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Models/User.cs:9
Email — 2 field(s)
- RegisterNewUser.Email src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:21
- RegisterNewUserRequestDto.Email src/BookingMonolith/src/Identity/Identities/Features/RegisteringNewUser/V1/RegisterNewUser.cs:26