Executive summary
mingrammer/diagrams scores 61 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged. The project hasn't declared a stable release yet, so its lenses are rated against a lower bar than a released product's, while the score itself is worked out as for any repository.
The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 57 and is rated Adequate. Its Observability dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag and to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 61 to about 65.
37 findings are critical: 26 in Static Analysis (SAST), eight in Dependency Vulnerabilities, one in Forms & labels, one in IaC & Container Security and one in Keyboard semantics.
Watchdog couldn't measure 7 dimensions in this code, among them Dependency Hygiene, Internal API Consistency and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 4,503 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €6,800, to rebuild.
If Production Readiness rose from 57 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 61 to about 65.
New since the last survey: 13 findings
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
- Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) playground/src/components/Toolbar.tsx
- Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) playground/src/components/NodeSearch.tsx
- Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard playground/src/app.css
- Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard playground/src/app.css
- Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard playground/src/app.css
Fixed since the last survey: 3 findings
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €6,800 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €2,200 to €11,000, for 37 to 119 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write. |
| Quality factor | ×0.8 at a score of 61. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it. |
| Size | Small: 4,503 lines of product code |
Top priorities
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 diagrams | 2 playground.src.components | 3 playground.src.types | 4 playground.src.utils | 5 diagrams.alibabacloud | 6 diagrams.aws | 7 diagrams.azure | 8 diagrams.digitalocean | 9 diagrams.elastic | 10 diagrams.firebase | 11 diagrams.gcp | 12 diagrams.generic | 13 diagrams.gis | 14 diagrams.ibm | 15 diagrams.k8s | 16 diagrams.oci | 17 diagrams.onprem | 18 diagrams.openstack | 19 diagrams.outscale | 20 diagrams.programming | 21 diagrams.saas | 22 diagrams.alibabacloud.analytics | 23 diagrams.alibabacloud.application | 24 diagrams.alibabacloud.communication | 25 diagrams.alibabacloud.compute | 26 diagrams.alibabacloud.database | 27 diagrams.alibabacloud.iot | 28 diagrams.alibabacloud.network | 29 diagrams.alibabacloud.security | 30 diagrams.alibabacloud.storage | 31 diagrams.alibabacloud.web | 32 diagrams.aws.analytics | 33 diagrams.aws.ar | 34 diagrams.aws.blockchain | 35 diagrams.aws.business | 36 diagrams.aws.compute | 37 diagrams.aws.cost | 38 diagrams.aws.database | 39 diagrams.aws.devtools | 40 diagrams.aws.enablement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 diagrams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 playground.src.components | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 playground.src.types | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 playground.src.utils | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 diagrams.alibabacloud | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 diagrams.aws | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 diagrams.azure | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 diagrams.digitalocean | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 diagrams.elastic | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 diagrams.firebase | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 diagrams.gcp | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 diagrams.generic | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 diagrams.gis | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 diagrams.ibm | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 diagrams.k8s | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 diagrams.oci | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 diagrams.onprem | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 diagrams.openstack | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 diagrams.outscale | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 diagrams.programming | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 diagrams.saas | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 diagrams.alibabacloud.analytics | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 diagrams.alibabacloud.application | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 diagrams.alibabacloud.communication | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 diagrams.alibabacloud.compute | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 diagrams.alibabacloud.database | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 diagrams.alibabacloud.iot | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 diagrams.alibabacloud.network | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 diagrams.alibabacloud.security | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 diagrams.alibabacloud.storage | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 diagrams.alibabacloud.web | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 diagrams.aws.analytics | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 diagrams.aws.ar | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 diagrams.aws.blockchain | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 diagrams.aws.business | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 diagrams.aws.compute | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 diagrams.aws.cost | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38 diagrams.aws.database | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 diagrams.aws.devtools | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 diagrams.aws.enablement | 1 |
5→1 diagrams.alibabacloud uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.alibabacloud, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
6→1 diagrams.aws uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws._AWS→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.aws uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.aws, while a change to diagrams.aws can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
7→1 diagrams.azure uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.azure uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.azure._Azure→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.azure uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.azure, while a change to diagrams.azure can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.azure uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
8→1 diagrams.digitalocean uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.digitalocean uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.digitalocean._DigitalOcean→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.digitalocean uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.digitalocean, while a change to diagrams.digitalocean can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.digitalocean uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
9→1 diagrams.elastic uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.elastic uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.elastic._Elastic→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.elastic uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.elastic, while a change to diagrams.elastic can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.elastic uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
10→1 diagrams.firebase uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.firebase uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.firebase._Firebase→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.firebase uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.firebase, while a change to diagrams.firebase can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.firebase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
11→1 diagrams.gcp uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.gcp uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.gcp._GCP→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.gcp uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.gcp, while a change to diagrams.gcp can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.gcp uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
12→1 diagrams.generic uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.generic uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.generic._Generic→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.generic uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.generic, while a change to diagrams.generic can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.generic uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
13→1 diagrams.gis uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.gis uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.gis._GIS→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.gis uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.gis, while a change to diagrams.gis can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.gis uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
14→1 diagrams.ibm uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.ibm uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.ibm._IBM→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.ibm uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.ibm, while a change to diagrams.ibm can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.ibm uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→1 diagrams.k8s uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.k8s uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.k8s._K8S→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.k8s uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.k8s, while a change to diagrams.k8s can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.k8s uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→1 diagrams.oci uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.oci uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.oci._OCI→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.oci uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.oci, while a change to diagrams.oci can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.oci uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→1 diagrams.onprem uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.onprem uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.onprem._OnPrem→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.onprem uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.onprem, while a change to diagrams.onprem can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.onprem uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→1 diagrams.openstack uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.openstack uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.openstack._OpenStack→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.openstack uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.openstack, while a change to diagrams.openstack can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.openstack uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
19→1 diagrams.outscale uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.outscale uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.outscale._Outscale→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.outscale uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.outscale, while a change to diagrams.outscale can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.outscale uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
20→1 diagrams.programming uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.programming uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.programming._Programming→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.programming uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.programming, while a change to diagrams.programming can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.programming uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→1 diagrams.saas uses diagrams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.saas uses a type in diagrams.
- The types involved
diagrams.saas._Saas→diagrams.Node
- Direction
- diagrams.saas uses diagrams, so a change to diagrams can break diagrams.saas, while a change to diagrams.saas can't break diagrams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.saas uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.analytics uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.analytics uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.analytics._Analytics→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.analytics uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.analytics, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.analytics can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.analytics uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.application uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.application uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.application._Application→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.application uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.application, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.application can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.application uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.communication uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.communication uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.communication._Communication→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.communication uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.communication, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.communication can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.communication uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.compute uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.compute uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.compute._Compute→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.compute uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.compute, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.compute can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.compute uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.database uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.database uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.database._Database→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.database uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.database, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.database can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.database uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.iot uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.iot uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.iot._Iot→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.iot uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.iot, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.iot can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.iot uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
28→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.network uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.network uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.network._Network→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.network uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.network, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.network can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.network uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
29→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.security uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.security uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.security._Security→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.security uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.security, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.security can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.security uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
30→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.storage uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.storage uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.storage._Storage→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.storage uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.storage, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.storage can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.storage uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
31→5 diagrams.alibabacloud.web uses diagrams.alibabacloud✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.web uses a type in diagrams.alibabacloud.
- The types involved
diagrams.alibabacloud.web._Web→diagrams.alibabacloud._AlibabaCloud
- Direction
- diagrams.alibabacloud.web uses diagrams.alibabacloud, so a change to diagrams.alibabacloud can break diagrams.alibabacloud.web, while a change to diagrams.alibabacloud.web can't break diagrams.alibabacloud.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.alibabacloud.web uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
32→6 diagrams.aws.analytics uses diagrams.aws✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws.analytics uses a type in diagrams.aws.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws.analytics._Analytics→diagrams.aws._AWS
- Direction
- diagrams.aws.analytics uses diagrams.aws, so a change to diagrams.aws can break diagrams.aws.analytics, while a change to diagrams.aws.analytics can't break diagrams.aws.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws.analytics uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
33→6 diagrams.aws.ar uses diagrams.aws✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws.ar uses a type in diagrams.aws.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws.ar._Ar→diagrams.aws._AWS
- Direction
- diagrams.aws.ar uses diagrams.aws, so a change to diagrams.aws can break diagrams.aws.ar, while a change to diagrams.aws.ar can't break diagrams.aws.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws.ar uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
34→6 diagrams.aws.blockchain uses diagrams.aws✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws.blockchain uses a type in diagrams.aws.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws.blockchain._Blockchain→diagrams.aws._AWS
- Direction
- diagrams.aws.blockchain uses diagrams.aws, so a change to diagrams.aws can break diagrams.aws.blockchain, while a change to diagrams.aws.blockchain can't break diagrams.aws.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws.blockchain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→6 diagrams.aws.business uses diagrams.aws✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws.business uses a type in diagrams.aws.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws.business._Business→diagrams.aws._AWS
- Direction
- diagrams.aws.business uses diagrams.aws, so a change to diagrams.aws can break diagrams.aws.business, while a change to diagrams.aws.business can't break diagrams.aws.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws.business uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→6 diagrams.aws.compute uses diagrams.aws✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws.compute uses a type in diagrams.aws.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws.compute._Compute→diagrams.aws._AWS
- Direction
- diagrams.aws.compute uses diagrams.aws, so a change to diagrams.aws can break diagrams.aws.compute, while a change to diagrams.aws.compute can't break diagrams.aws.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws.compute uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→6 diagrams.aws.cost uses diagrams.aws✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws.cost uses a type in diagrams.aws.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws.cost._Cost→diagrams.aws._AWS
- Direction
- diagrams.aws.cost uses diagrams.aws, so a change to diagrams.aws can break diagrams.aws.cost, while a change to diagrams.aws.cost can't break diagrams.aws.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws.cost uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
38→6 diagrams.aws.database uses diagrams.aws✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws.database uses a type in diagrams.aws.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws.database._Database→diagrams.aws._AWS
- Direction
- diagrams.aws.database uses diagrams.aws, so a change to diagrams.aws can break diagrams.aws.database, while a change to diagrams.aws.database can't break diagrams.aws.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws.database uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
39→6 diagrams.aws.devtools uses diagrams.aws✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws.devtools uses a type in diagrams.aws.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws.devtools._Devtools→diagrams.aws._AWS
- Direction
- diagrams.aws.devtools uses diagrams.aws, so a change to diagrams.aws can break diagrams.aws.devtools, while a change to diagrams.aws.devtools can't break diagrams.aws.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws.devtools uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→6 diagrams.aws.enablement uses diagrams.aws✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in diagrams.aws.enablement uses a type in diagrams.aws.
- The types involved
diagrams.aws.enablement._Enablement→diagrams.aws._AWS
- Direction
- diagrams.aws.enablement uses diagrams.aws, so a change to diagrams.aws can break diagrams.aws.enablement, while a change to diagrams.aws.enablement can't break diagrams.aws.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: diagrams.aws.enablement uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Accessibility
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2025 — Injection | 31 | High / Critical |
| A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures | 23 | High / Critical |
| A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration | 10 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, implement user-facing diagnostic logging to capture error details for reproducible bug reports, and establish draft release gates to prevent bad builds from reaching users. Next, enforce accessibility standards by integrating automated testing in the toolchain and CI pipeline. Finally, ensure all custom controls are fully keyboard-operable and adhere to visual safety guidelines for focus styles, motion, and color contrast.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag. Start with the error paths that emit nothing — a discarded error is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce. | +3.5 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +1.3 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +2.4 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI. | +2.3 pts | Medium | A11y enforcement |
| Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href. | +2.0 pts | Medium | Keyboard semantics |
| Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1. | +1.7 pts | Medium | Visual & motion safety |
| Dependabot is configured but does not watch `github-actions` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to .github/dependabot.yml so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers. | +1.4 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label. | +1.1 pts | Medium | Forms & labels |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 1.3 | Slop | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical vulnerability: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 1.4 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 1.4 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 1.9 | Slop | Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 2.0 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 2.3 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 3.0 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 3.0 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 3.3 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED |
| diagrams/__init__.py | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| scripts/generate.py | 6.9 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| playground/src/components/PreviewPane.tsx | 7.8 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: PreviewPane.PreviewPane (cyclomatic 48) |
| playground/src/components/ExportBar.tsx | 7.8 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: ExportBar.ExportBar (cyclomatic 20) |
| playground/src/App.tsx | 7.8 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: App.App (cyclomatic 19) |
| config.py | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| playground/scripts/gen_catalog.py | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: gen_catalog.build_catalog (cognitive 25) |
| playground/src/utils/rename.ts | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: rename.renameDiagramInCode (cognitive 17) |
| REDACTED | 8.6 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: Low IaC: REDACTED |
How the grades work
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
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. 68 of 71 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 0.9 — 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 — 71 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, 112 of 126 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 |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ 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 · 3.2.533 | ✓ 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
- D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 115 test(s) behind this row are the ones the JavaScript/TypeScript census could read, and this repository also carries at least 8 test source file(s) (.py) that it cannot: it reads JavaScript/TypeScript test declarations off disk, so a JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 3 shipped Python distribution(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs pypi.org, and no declaration here carries an exact pin to ask about — a floor or a range installs the newest release it admits and cannot be behind one, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares package.json, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its Python distribution dependencies. Nothing was read about its npm dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict. For npm the surface is what a published package.json's entry points (exports, main, module, types) export, followed through the source; an entry that names build output the tree does not commit (dist/, build/) is not followed back to source, because only a tsconfig outDir/rootDir pair states that mapping and a bundler's input lives in executable configuration this engine does not evaluate.
- D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
- D28 Secrets (history) — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. D28's config-credential rule (WD-SECRET-0002) parses each committed `.json` config as a document and reads credential-named values; `.devcontainer/devcontainer.json` did not parse (JSON5, a template, several concatenated documents), so a credential bound there is UNMEASURED by that rule. gitleaks still scanned the same files as text.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `playground/src/components/Toolbar.tsx` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
- D35 Change Coupling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Change coupling is mined from the co-change history of production source files, but this repository's production source is .ts, .tsx, which this pass does not recognise as source — only 267 file(s) could be paired, so no coupling could be found no matter how tangled the history is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
- X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
- 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.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- 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. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- 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.
- 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 on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- 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.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
- AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- 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.
- 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".
- 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
4 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was PreviewPane.PreviewPane at 48.
What to do
- Bring the 1 body over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with PreviewPane.PreviewPane (cyclomatic 48). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.5 to about 9.0/10.
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
6 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was PreviewPane.PreviewPane at 56.
What to do
- Bring the 1 body over 30 down to 30 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with PreviewPane.PreviewPane (cognitive 56). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.7 to about 8.5/10.
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D5 · Coupling
2 production modules (npm+Python), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 1 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
D9 · Test Distribution
185 test methods: 179 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 6 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 115 `it`/`test` case(s) across 17 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only. The Python suite contributes 70 test function(s) across 7 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only.
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 115 tests. Measured on the JavaScript/TypeScript suite only — at least 8 test source file(s) (.py) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). JavaScript/TypeScript (vitest via `npm ci --ignore-scripts` in playground/ (109 tests)): measured (0 flaky); Python (repository root, 7 test files): measured (0 flaky).
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 4 shipped Python distribution(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from PyPI over the distributions a consumer installs — this repository's 3 declared runtime requirement(s) closed transitively over each distribution's published `requires_dist` (1 reached that way). Requirements it states ONLY under an extra, a PEP 735 dependency group, a Poetry dev group or a dev-named requirements file are excluded: pip does not install any of them for a consumer. ★ This repository commits no dependency lockfile that this pass reads, so each licence is the one PyPI publishes for the distribution's CURRENT release rather than for a pinned version. 2 of them publish no licence on PyPI this pass can read; that is missing data, not a violation, and none of them is charged. This repository publishes itself under MIT, which is its own choice and is not judged here. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's Python distribution dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares package.json, and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D16 · Bus Factor
1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is scripts/check_release_version.py. Counted over 6 of the 28 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D17 · Explicit Debt
9 deducted task-comment markers across 4244 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.7. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
What to do
- Resolve the 8 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with __init__.py (4), generate.py (3), config.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with __init__.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README and the getting-started docs are clear and complete for a library project: it states what diagrams is (draw cloud architecture in Python code), its license, prerequisites (Python >=3.9, Graphviz), and installation commands; it shows live-playground usage with an overview of why it exists versus local installs; and it documents the full API surface via examples, cluster docs, edge types, nodes by provider, and a detailed architecture guide. The README also links to the root index for overview/contributing/usage. The documentation is a collection of Node class diagrams for the ibm, k8s, oci, onprem, openstack, and outscale providers, each showing a list of node types with corresponding diagram labels. The diagrams are excellent at conveying provider capabilities but lack any overview (what the project is or does), installation/usage guidance, contribution instructions, or licensing information for the repository as a whole. (9 of 25 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 3 evaluation groups failed.)
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.9/10. — The repository's root README and the getting-started docs are clear and complete for a library project: it states what diagrams is (draw cloud architecture in Python code), its license, prerequisites (Python >=3.9, Graphviz), and installation commands; it shows live-playground usage with an overview of why it exists versus local installs; and it documents the full API surface via examples, cluster docs, edge types, nodes by provider, and a detailed architecture guide. The README also links to the root index for overview/contributing/usage. The documentation is a collection of Node class diagrams for the ibm, k8s, oci, onprem, openstack, and outscale providers, each showing a list of node types with corresponding diagram labels. The diagrams are excellent at conveying provider capabilities but lack any overview (what the project is or does), installation/usage guidance, contribution instructions, or licensing information for the repository as a whole. (9 of 25 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 3 evaluation groups failed.)
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 3 build units (Python, npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
31 finding(s): 0 critical, 26 high, 5 medium, 0 low. 21 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `.devcontainer/devcontainer.json`, `playground/src/components/Toolbar.tsx` (line 84) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 21 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
14 finding(s): 3 critical, 5 high, 6 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 5 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Critical vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
10 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 4 medium, 5 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 5 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 4 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
1 of 6 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is diagrams/c4/__init__.py. Counted over 6 of the 28 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with __init__.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
What to do
- Resolve the 5 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 3 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC1 · Text alternatives
AC2 · Forms & labels
- This control has no associated label. Add a <label htmlFor> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. — playground/src/components/PreviewPane.tsx:251
What to do
- Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
AC3 · Page structure
AC4 · Keyboard semantics
- This <div> binds pointerdown, pointerup, pointermove and double-click — pointer gestures with no keyboard form, a double-click among them. No click, no key handler, and no tabIndex={0}, so it cannot even take focus. Nothing synthesises a double-click from the keyboard: Enter and Space fire a single click, and only on a native <button> or <a href>. So this behaviour has no keyboard path at all. Expose the same action on a real control, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler alongside the double-click. — playground/src/components/DragHandle.tsx:47
What to do
- Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
AC5 · ARIA correctness
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
- `.app button` moves (`transition: background-color 120ms ease, color 120ms ease, border-color 120ms ease, transform 120ms ease, box-shadow 120ms ease`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — playground/src/app.css:236
- `.tree-chevron` moves (`transition: transform 150ms ease`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — playground/src/app.css:664
- `.export-auto-toggle .toggle-knob` moves (`transition: transform 150ms ease`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — playground/src/app.css:1174
What to do
- Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 11 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 2 of 2 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/grouped_workers_diagram.png`, but `img/grouped_workers_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/examples.md:24
- docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/clustered_web_services_diagram.png`, but `img/clustered_web_services_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/examples.md:55
- docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/event_processing_diagram.png`, but `img/event_processing_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/examples.md:90
- docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/message_collecting_diagram.png`, but `img/message_collecting_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/examples.md:128
- docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/exposed_pod_with_3_replicas_diagram.png`, but `img/exposed_pod_with_3_replicas_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/examples.md:146
- docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/stateful_architecture_diagram.png`, but `img/stateful_architecture_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/examples.md:171
- docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premises.png`, but `img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premises.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/examples.md:214
- docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premises_colored.png`, but `img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premises_colored.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/examples.md:257
- docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/rabbitmq_consumers_diagram.png`, but `img/rabbitmq_consumers_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/examples.md:286
- docs/getting-started/installation.md links to `/img/web_service_diagram.png`, but `img/web_service_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/installation.md:51
- docs/getting-started/playground.md links to `/docs/getting-started/installation`, but `docs/getting-started/installation` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/getting-started/playground.md:36
- docs/guides/cluster.md links to `/img/simple_web_service_with_db_cluster_diagram.png`, but `img/simple_web_service_with_db_cluster_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/guides/cluster.md:32
- docs/guides/cluster.md links to `/img/event_processing_diagram.png`, but `img/event_processing_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/guides/cluster.md:69
- docs/guides/edge.md links to `/img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premises_colored.png`, but `img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premises_colored.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/guides/edge.md:68
- docs/guides/edge.md links to `/img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premise_less_edges.png`, but `img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premise_less_edges.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/guides/edge.md:121
- docs/guides/edge.md links to `/img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premise_merged_edges.png`, but `img/advanced_web_service_with_on-premise_merged_edges.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/guides/edge.md:195
- docs/guides/node.md links to `/img/web_services_diagram.png`, but `img/web_services_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/guides/node.md:87
- docs/guides/node.md links to `/img/workers_diagram.png`, but `img/workers_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/guides/node.md:111
- docs/guides/node.md links to `/img/grouped_workers_diagram.png`, but `img/grouped_workers_diagram.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/guides/node.md:131
- docs/nodes/c4.md links to `/img/c4.png`, but `img/c4.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/nodes/c4.md:77
- docs/nodes/custom.md links to `/img/custom_local.png`, but `img/custom_local.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/nodes/custom.md:46
- docs/nodes/custom.md links to `/img/custom_remote.png`, but `img/custom_remote.png` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/nodes/custom.md:87
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/grouped_workers_diagram.png`, but `img/grouped_workers_diagram.png` does not exist; docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/clustered_web_services_diagram.png`, but `img/clustered_web_services_diagram.png` does not exist; docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/event_processing_diagram.png`, but `img/event_processing_diagram.png` does not exist; docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/message_collecting_diagram.png`, but `img/message_collecting_diagram.png` does not exist; docs/getting-started/examples.md links to `/img/exposed_pod_with_3_replicas_diagram.png`, but `img/exposed_pod_with_3_replicas_diagram.png` does not exist.
P1 · CI/CD gates
P10 · Library API & versioning
P2 · Observability
- No logging or diagnostics emission found. This repository ships a binary its users launch rather than a service you operate, so there is no operator to page — but when a run fails on a user's machine, neither they nor you have anything to read.
What to do
- Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag. Start with the error paths that emit nothing — a discarded error is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Dependabot is configured but does not watch `github-actions` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to .github/dependabot.yml so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- `https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-Y1TWCZ0L77` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. — playground/index.html:72
What to do
- Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script). Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 0/1 async functions that make a cancellable request (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch) accept an AbortSignal or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a page navigated away from, an unmounted component, a timed-out job. Take a `signal` (or an options object that carries one) and hand it to the request; where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
- `defaultFetchWheelUrl` awaits `fetch(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `fetch(url, { signal })`. — playground/src/worker/client.ts:28
What to do
- Thread an AbortSignal through async functions that make requests, so the work stops when its caller gives up.
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X22 · Contradicted release guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
- `svg` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the text of an element through `dangerouslySetInnerHTML` with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. Encode it for HTML at this site, render it through the framework's escaping output, or sanitise it if it must stay markup. — playground/src/components/PreviewPane.tsx:326
What to do
- Each finding names the expression, the attribute it lands in and the line. Confirm the value's origin from the read this analyzer traced, then escape it at the sink or validate it against the shape the attribute accepts before interpolating.
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X3 · Exception handling
- `.catch(() => {})` handles the rejection by doing nothing — the failure is discarded with no log and no rethrow, and the chain carries on as if the work succeeded. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, hand it to a caller that can (`next(error)`, a returned rejection), or don't catch it. (×2) — playground/src/components/Toolbar.tsx:86, playground/src/components/NodeSearch.tsx:123
What to do
- Swallowed exception (empty catch)
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
X5 · Nullable reference types
- ~6.4 `!` null assertions per 1k TypeScript source lines — 17 assertion(s) across the 2643 source line(s) of the 31 TypeScript file(s) read, which is the only code the operator asserts anything in (a `!` in a `.js` file is not this operator and was not counted, and one in a file whose null checking is off silences nothing). Densest: playground/src/components/PreviewPane.tsx (7), playground/src/worker/client.ts (4), playground/src/completions/imports.ts (2). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null, suppressing the very diagnostic `strictNullChecks` exists to produce.
What to do
- The findings name the configuration each number was taken from and, for the assertions, the files that hold them. Turn null checking on where it is off — `"strict": true` in the base tsconfig that the others extend switches `strictNullChecks` on with the rest of the family — and then resolve the assertions rather than adding to them. A `!` on a value the checker could show to be null is a promise the author cannot check from where they are standing, and each one is a `TypeError: Cannot read properties of null` waiting for the path that makes it true; where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (narrow it with a test, make the property required, drop the `?`).
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC1 · Text alternatives | 1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5 | Partial signal |
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC4 · Keyboard semantics | 2.1.1, 2.4.3 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 67% | Strong | Solid. |
| Architecture | 95% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 68% | Strong | Solid. |
| Readiness | 57% | Adequate — gated by P2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 71% | Adequate — gated by D29, D30, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Accessibility | 58% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
| Performance | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 49 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Python imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No function in this Python code is served by a threaded web framework (a Flask, Bottle or FastAPI route, a Django or Pyramid view), so no module is shared between request threads. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — no exported interface declares behaviour
- 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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — this repository registers no route and starts no server another machine can reach (no Flask/FastAPI/Starlette route, Django urlpatterns or class-based view, Tornado handler). Access control is therefore N/A here — a library or command-line tool is authorized by the application that serves it, 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 a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Django, SQLAlchemy, SQLModel, Peewee, Tortoise or MongoEngine model, a migration or a SQL schema — and no database or data-store client (Django ORM, SQLAlchemy, psycopg, PyMongo, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential on a Django, SQLAlchemy, SQLModel, Peewee, Tortoise or mongoengine model, in a migration or in a SQL schema — and no database or data-store client (django.db, sqlalchemy, psycopg2, pymongo, sqlite3, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential on a Django, SQLAlchemy, SQLModel, Peewee, Tortoise or mongoengine model, in a migration or in a SQL schema — and no database or data-store client (django.db, sqlalchemy, psycopg2, pymongo, sqlite3, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 3 shipped Python distribution(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs pypi.org, and no declaration here carries an exact pin to ask about — a floor or a range installs the newest release it admits and cannot be behind one, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.html,.js,.ts,.tsx), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 1 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
- D35 Change Coupling — change coupling unreadable for .ts, .tsx — no production change history could be paired for this repository's own source
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D4 Code Duplication — This repository's production source (.ts, .tsx) is not read by D4's token comparison, which compares .NET source: duplication in it is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream. Not scored here — read the R10 card for this repository's duplication.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — playground/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript, Python source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a pytest-benchmark or pytest-codspeed dependency with tests taking the `benchmark` fixture, an asv.conf.json with its `time_`/`mem_`/`peakmem_` benchmarks, or a pyperf Runner, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript and Python runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 37 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- <input> without a programmatic label playground/src/components/PreviewPane.tsx:251
- Double-click handler on a non-interactive <div> playground/src/components/DragHandle.tsx:47
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
Serious — 51 finding(s)
- TodoComment config.py:118
- TodoComment diagrams/__init__.py:116
- TodoComment diagrams/__init__.py:131
- TodoComment diagrams/__init__.py:132
- TodoComment diagrams/__init__.py:484
- TodoComment scripts/generate.py:32
- TodoComment scripts/generate.py:33
- TodoComment scripts/generate.py:52
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard playground/src/app.css:236
- Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard playground/src/app.css:664
- Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard playground/src/app.css:1174
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Swallowed exception (empty catch) playground/src/components/Toolbar.tsx:86
- Swallowed exception (empty catch) playground/src/components/NodeSearch.tsx:123
- Accessibility enforcement below the top rung
- PreviewPane.PreviewPane (cyclomatic 48) playground/src/components/PreviewPane.tsx:21
- ExportBar.ExportBar (cyclomatic 20) playground/src/components/ExportBar.tsx:77
- App.App (cyclomatic 19) playground/src/App.tsx:42
- Diagram.__init__ (cyclomatic 17) diagrams/__init__.py:133
- FixmeComment diagrams/__init__.py:282
- PreviewPane.PreviewPane (cognitive 56) playground/src/components/PreviewPane.tsx:21
- ExportBar.ExportBar (cognitive 25) playground/src/components/ExportBar.tsx:77
- gen_catalog.build_catalog (cognitive 25) playground/scripts/gen_catalog.py:24
- App.App (cognitive 23) playground/src/App.tsx:42
- rename.renameDiagramInCode (cognitive 17) playground/src/utils/rename.ts:14
- Diagram.__init__ (cognitive 17) diagrams/__init__.py:133
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite
- No structured logging
- Third-party script without Subresource Integrity playground/index.html:72
- Async function without AbortSignal: defaultFetchWheelUrl playground/src/worker/client.ts:28
- Untrusted text written into markup unescaped playground/src/components/PreviewPane.tsx:326
Minor — 38 finding(s)
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/examples.md:24
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/examples.md:55
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/examples.md:90
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/examples.md:128
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/examples.md:146
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/examples.md:171
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/examples.md:214
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/examples.md:257
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/examples.md:286
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/installation.md:51
- README/code drift docs/getting-started/playground.md:36
- README/code drift docs/guides/cluster.md:32
- README/code drift docs/guides/cluster.md:69
- README/code drift docs/guides/edge.md:68
- README/code drift docs/guides/edge.md:121
- README/code drift docs/guides/edge.md:195
- README/code drift docs/guides/node.md:87
- README/code drift docs/guides/node.md:111
- README/code drift docs/guides/node.md:131
- README/code drift docs/nodes/c4.md:77
- README/code drift docs/nodes/custom.md:46
- README/code drift docs/nodes/custom.md:87
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
- No ADRs found
- Orphaned files with no living knowledge
- Orphaned file diagrams/c4/__init__.py:1
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No ADRs
- No src/ separation
- Not all async functions that make a request accept an AbortSignal
- Null assertions (`!`) reduce the strict null checking score
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-e55a5902bd1e441fb0696d6e1a2faf43/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-e55a5902bd1e441fb0696d6e1a2faf43/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 31 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 14 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 10 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 1 file(s) — `playground/src/components/Toolbar.tsx` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |