Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
microsoft/SynapseML carries serious gaps (42%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Architecture (92%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (20%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (56%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution (Test Distribution); ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through… (Test Coverage).
For scale: Hobby (~0 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (92%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
67%
Adequate · gated by R1
Architecture
92% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
56%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
20% ⚠
Critical · gated by D9, R4, R6, P2, P6
Security
62%
Adequate · gated by D29, D31, D36
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 20% · 47% weightMaturity 56% · 26% weightSecurity 62% · 14% weightCode Health 67% · 8% weightArchitecture 92% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 20 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 42 → ~62.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
2
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
3
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
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
10.0
R10 · React / TS
Code Duplication
10.0
R2 · React / TS
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
R3 · React / TS
Large Files
7.1
R7 · React / TS
Dead Code
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 50 | High / Critical |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 7 | High / Critical |
| A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures | 1 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by addressing the single missing test in the distribution area to establish a baseline. Next, implement structured logging using ILogger or Serilog across all services to improve observability. Then, expand test coverage to include all production modules to ensure reliability. Finally, maintain a current changelog for each release and configure linting and type-checking scripts in CI to enforce code quality.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +21.5 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +21.5 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +21.5 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
| Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub. | +21.0 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI. | +20.7 pts | Medium | Tooling |
| Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery). | +20.2 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies. | +18.0 pts | Medium | Dependency Hygiene |
| Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically. | +14.2 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile | 0.0 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile | 0.6 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| tools/helm/spark/Dockerfile | 2.0 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| tools/docker/demo/Dockerfile | 2.7 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| tools/helm/livy/mini.Dockerfile | 3.0 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| tools/helm/zeppelin/mini.Dockerfile | 3.7 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| tools/docker/minimal/Dockerfile | 4.8 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| tools/helm/spark/mini.Dockerfile | 5.1 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| tools/verify_snapshot_alignment.py | 6.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: use-defused-xml |
| website/docusaurus.config.js | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key |
| .github/workflows/ado-integration.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/ado-pr-to-workitem.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/remove-awaiting-response-label.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| cognitive/src/main/scala/com/microsoft/azure/synapse/ml/services/search/AzureSearchAuth.scala | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: tainted-sql-string |
| core/src/main/scala/com/microsoft/azure/synapse/ml/codegen/GenerationUtils.scala | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: tainted-sql-string |
| website/blog/2018-04-01-Flexible and Scalable Deep Learning with MMLSpark.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: No context/problem and no consequences/trade-offs; only a description of the library and an application are present |
| website/blog/2019-06-01-MMLSpark Unifying Machine Learning Ecosystems at Massive Scales.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Decision and consequences are absent; the body is a marketing/announcement title with no explicit decision (e.g. API contract) or trade-offs |
| website/blog/2019-08-24-Welcome to Azure Cognitive Services.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: The title is a greeting ('Dear Spark developers: Welcome to Azure Cognitive Services') and the body is essentially a promotional blur-blast with no context/problem or explicit decision; it reads like a blog post rather than an ADR |
| website/blog/2019-10-02-MMLSpark empowering AI for Good with Mark Hamilton.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: The body is a podcast transcript with no context/problem and no explicit decision; the only content is an intro that clips mid-sentence |
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. 42 of 44 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 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 — 44 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D7D9D12D13D20D21D26D27D28D29D31D33D36D37D38AX5M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P6R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9X1X3X4
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- 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, 62 of 75 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
- D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- 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.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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.
- 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.
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.
- D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
- 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.
- 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").
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- 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").
- 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.
- 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
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
0 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D7 · Architectural Integrity
Of 0 mechanizable ADRs, 0 are prevented by analyzers, 0 by tests, 0 exist only in prose. Coverage: 100 %. Cycles found: 0.
What to do
- Enforce Architectural Integrity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
Evaluated 5 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 3.8/10 (frequently incomplete). 4 flagged with a specific gap.
No context/problem and no consequences/trade-offs; only a description of the library and an application are presentwebsite/blog/2018-04-01-Flexible and Scalable Deep Learning with MMLSpark.md
Decision and consequences are absent; the body is a marketing/announcement title with no explicit decision (e.g. API contract) or trade-offswebsite/blog/2019-06-01-MMLSpark Unifying Machine Learning Ecosystems at Massive Scales.md
The title is a greeting ('Dear Spark developers: Welcome to Azure Cognitive Services') and the body is essentially a promotional blur-blast with no context/problem or explicit decision; it reads like a blog post rather than an ADRwebsite/blog/2019-08-24-Welcome to Azure Cognitive Services.md
The body is a podcast transcript with no context/problem and no explicit decision; the only content is an intro that clips mid-sentencewebsite/blog/2019-10-02-MMLSpark empowering AI for Good with Mark Hamilton.md
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No context/problem and no consequences/trade-offs; only a description of… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 2018-04-01-Flexible and Scalable Deep Learning with MMLSpark.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Decision and consequences are absent; the body is a… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 2019-06-01-MMLSpark Unifying Machine Learning Ecosystems at Massive Scales.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 The title is a greeting ('Dear Spark developers finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 2019-08-24-Welcome to Azure Cognitive Services.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
No projects to assess.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
Too little code to assess navigability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
Secret: generic-api-keywebsite/docusaurus.config.js:129
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
7 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 2 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ado-integration.yml:12
Medium: use-defused-xml tools/verify_snapshot_alignment.py:31
What to do
- Resolve the 5 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with AzureSearchAuth.scala, GenerationUtils.scala, ado-integration.yml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with verify_snapshot_alignment.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
83 finding(s): 0 critical, 21 high, 13 medium, 49 low.
High IaC: DS-0002 tools/docker/demo/Dockerfile
Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/docker/demo/Dockerfile
Low IaC: DS-0014 tools/docker/demo/Dockerfile
What to do
- Resolve the 21 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (16), mini.Dockerfile (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 issue-level).
- Resolve the 16 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (15), mini.Dockerfile. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 13 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (10), mini.Dockerfile (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable dependencies (OSV).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Grow the ADR log (currently 5) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
What to do
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup
What to do
- Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
- Enable purge protection / soft-delete (and prevent_destroy on critical resources) so data stores can't be lost to an accidental or malicious delete.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- A changelog exists but has few versioned entries — keep it current with each release.
What to do
- Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.
- Stamp a version (csproj <Version>, a VERSION file, or GitVersion) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety
- 0 typed · 16 plain JS
What to do
- Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R10 · Code Duplication
Do you agree with this assessment?
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files
What to do
- Split the oversized components into smaller, focused ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage
- No test imports this module directly or transitively — its behavior is unverified. — get-stats.js
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
Do you agree with this assessment?
R5 · Dependency Freshness
What to do
- Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗
What to do
- Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code
- 1 file(s) (~63 LoC) were excluded from dead-code analysis — declare main/module/exports or a conventional entry (src/index.*, an index.html script) so reachability can see this package.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
- Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. (×2) — get-stats.js:4, get-stats.js:15
What to do
- Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R9 · Circular Imports
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 67% | Adequate — gated by R1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 92% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 56% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 20% | Critical — gated by D9, R4, R6, P2, P6 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 62% | Adequate — gated by D29, D31, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 59 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.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — no source files detected — code composition not applicable
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — no csproj graph available
- AX4 Dependency direction — no csproj graph available
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D10 Test Quality — ~4507 lines of test code exist on disk but weren't loaded from the analyzed solution (excluded from the .sln, or co-located/using a test attribute not loaded here), so test quality couldn't be assessed. Include the tests in the analyzed solution to enable this check.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Zero projects and zero LoC mean the codebase is trivial and has no structure to justify boundaries.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — none of 5 ADRs are conformance-checkable — unverifiable.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — No .NET solution found; no NuGet dependencies to scan for vulnerabilities.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D35 Change Coupling — no production change history to mine for change-coupling
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — No production classes were analyzable, so cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured (the solution likely failed to load or has no production code).
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — no C# methods found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- 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.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 28 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: DS-0002 tools/docker/demo/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/docker/demo/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 tools/docker/minimal/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/docker/minimal/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 tools/helm/livy/mini.Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0022 tools/helm/livy/mini.Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 tools/helm/spark/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/helm/spark/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/helm/spark/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 tools/helm/spark/mini.Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 tools/helm/zeppelin/mini.Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0022 tools/helm/zeppelin/mini.Dockerfile
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ado-integration.yml:12
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ado-pr-to-workitem.yml:13
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/remove-awaiting-response-label.yml:16
- High: tainted-sql-string cognitive/src/main/scala/com/microsoft/azure/synapse/ml/services/search/AzureSearchAuth.scala:131
- High: tainted-sql-string core/src/main/scala/com/microsoft/azure/synapse/ml/codegen/GenerationUtils.scala:32
D18 · Solution Shape
- Dimension evaluation failed
D28 · Secrets (history)
- Secret: generic-api-key website/docusaurus.config.js:129
Warning — 23 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/docker/demo/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/livy/mini.Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/spark/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/spark/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/spark/mini.Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/zeppelin/Dockerfile
- Medium IaC: DS-0013 tools/helm/zeppelin/mini.Dockerfile
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- Medium: use-defused-xml tools/verify_snapshot_alignment.py:31
- Medium: use-defused-xml-parse tools/verify_snapshot_alignment.py:112
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D20 · ADR Quality
- No context/problem and no consequences/trade-offs; only a description of the library and an application are present website/blog/2018-04-01-Flexible and Scalable Deep Learning with MMLSpark.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision and consequences are absent; the body is a marketing/announcement title with no explicit decision (e.g. API contract) or trade-offs website/blog/2019-06-01-MMLSpark Unifying Machine Learning Ecosystems at Massive Scales.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The title is a greeting ('Dear Spark developers: Welcome to Azure Cognitive Services') and the body is essentially a promotional blur-blast with no context/problem or explicit decision; it reads like a blog post rather than an ADR website/blog/2019-08-24-Welcome to Azure Cognitive Services.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a podcast transcript with no context/problem and no explicit decision; the only content is an intro that clips mid-sentence website/blog/2019-10-02-MMLSpark empowering AI for Good with Mark Hamilton.md
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
Recommendation — 23 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0014 tools/docker/demo/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 tools/docker/demo/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0014 tools/docker/minimal/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 tools/docker/minimal/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0014 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0014 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0014 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 tools/helm/livy/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 tools/helm/livy/mini.Dockerfile
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 1 finding(s)
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
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 . | 1 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 7 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet (no .NET solution) | — | dotnet (no .NET solution): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 83 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 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 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 0 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |