Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
mirceaulinic/salt-sproxy carries serious gaps (54%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Architecture (100%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.
The area that most needs attention is Maturity (43%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Readiness (58%) is the next concern — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation); build/run (quick start) section to the root README (Documentation (README)); 3 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) (Knowledge Freshness).
For scale: Small (~4,817 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
65%
Adequate · gated by D2
Architecture
100% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
43%
Weak · gated by D34, M2
Readiness
58%
Adequate · gated by D8, D9
Security
68%
Adequate · gated by D29
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Maturity 43% · 47% weightReadiness 58% · 26% weightCode Health 65% · 14% weightSecurity 68% · 8% weightArchitecture 100% · 4% weight
Raise Maturity 43 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 54 → ~64.
New since the last scan (3+)
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,600–€7,900
| Cost to rebuild | €1,600–€7,900 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 54% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€4,800 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 43% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 3 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with proxy.py, netbox.py, parsers.py.
2
Resolve the 1 The 'Usage Examples' section lists links to 101, NAPALM, Ansible,… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.rst.
3
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 43%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
A velocity tax on every change
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 5.8/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 6–13% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 13 | High / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 5 | High / Critical |
| A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures | 2 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 1 | Medium |
Roadmap
Begin by establishing a single source of truth for architectural decisions and create a clear build and run guide in the README to support new contributors. Next, correct the project structure by moving production code into a dedicated src/ directory to separate it from tooling. Finally, update the README to accurately reflect the current state of the codebase and resolve the three orphaned knowledge items to ensure information remains fresh and reliable.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 3 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with proxy.py, netbox.py, parsers.py. | +10.3 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 1 The 'Usage Examples' section lists links to 101, NAPALM, Ansible,… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.rst. | +7.1 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form). | +11.9 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +5.9 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +10.5 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +4.8 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +4.8 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. | +8.4 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dockerfile | 2.0 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py | 4.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: eval-detected |
| .github/workflows/codeql.yml | 4.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py | 4.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: insecure-hash-algorithm-sha1 |
| .github/workflows/pythonpublish.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/pythonapp.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| examples/netbox/master | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key |
| .github/dependabot.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: dependabot-missing-cooldown |
| .github/workflows/gh-reg-publish.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| salt_sproxy/cli.py | 7.4 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: SaltStandaloneProxy.run (cyclomatic 48) |
| salt_sproxy/_modules/netbox.py | 7.4 | Mixed | Cognitive Complexity: netbox.openconfig_interfaces (cognitive 25) |
| salt_sproxy/parsers.py | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: SaltStandaloneProxyOptionParser._mixin_after_parsed (cyclomatic 25) |
| requirements-dev.txt | 7.9 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| examples/README.rst | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The 'Usage Examples' section lists links to 101, NAPALM, Ansible, NetBox, Salt API, salt-sapi, Pillar Roster, and File Roster modules but does not mention the main installation or configuration path. |
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. 23 of 25 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — 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 — 25 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D8D9D13D15D19D21D28D29D31D34D35D36D38M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 48 of 59 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ 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
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- 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.
- 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").
- 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.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- 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
8 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was proxy.execute_devices at 53.
proxy.execute_devices (cyclomatic 53)salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:738
SaltStandaloneProxy.run (cyclomatic 48)salt_sproxy/cli.py:56
proxy.execute (cyclomatic 39)salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:1270
SProxyMinion.gen_modules (cyclomatic 31)salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:276
proxy.salt_call (cyclomatic 25)salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:504
What to do
- Resolve the 1 proxy.execute_devices (cyclomatic 53) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with proxy.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 SaltStandaloneProxy.run (cyclomatic 48) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with cli.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 proxy.execute (cyclomatic 39) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with proxy.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
9 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was proxy.execute_devices at 97.
proxy.execute_devices (cognitive 97)salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:738
SaltStandaloneProxyOptionParser._mixin_after_parsed (cognitive 71)salt_sproxy/parsers.py:570
proxy.execute (cognitive 58)salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:1270
SaltStandaloneProxy.run (cognitive 57)salt_sproxy/cli.py:56
_roster.compound (cognitive 50)salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:223
What to do
- Resolve the 1 proxy.execute_devices (cognitive 97) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with proxy.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 SaltStandaloneProxyOptionParser._mixin_after_parsed (cognitive 71) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with parsers.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 proxy.execute (cognitive 58) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with proxy.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
2 god class(es) detected.
FileTooLong: _runners/proxy.py salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:0
What to do
- Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with proxy.py, netbox.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
5 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:65
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3)salt_sproxy/cli.py:250
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:128
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)salt_sproxy/_modules/netbox.py:170
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.
No automated tests
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test suite found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The Salt Super-Proxy README and examples are strong: a top-level badge with Twitter share, PyPI/Docker/PyPI status, documentation status, code style, license, PR welcome, plus an extensive usage examples list. The two example docs (salt-sapi) show the intended API surface but one is clipped mid-body while the other is cut off; the visible content is clear and complete for a project of this size.
The 'Usage Examples' section lists links to 101, NAPALM, Ansible, NetBox, Salt API, salt-sapi, Pillar Roster, and File Roster modules but does not mention the main installation or configuration path.examples/README.rst
What to do
- Resolve the 1 The 'Usage Examples' section lists links to 101, NAPALM, Ansible,… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.rst. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
Secret: generic-api-keyexamples/netbox/master:9
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
13 finding(s): 0 critical, 12 high, 1 medium, 0 low.
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:3
Medium: insecure-hash-algorithm-sha1salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:1489
What to do
- Resolve the 12 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with codeql.yml (4), pythonpublish.yml (3), pythonapp.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with proxy.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
5 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 2 medium, 0 low.
High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile
Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_6 Dockerfile:3
What to do
- Resolve the 3 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
11 of 11 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py.
Orphaned knowledge salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with proxy.py, netbox.py, parsers.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
2/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No SBOM finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 1 medium, 0 low.
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted]requirements-dev.txt
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents 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.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — application code, tests and tooling are mixed at the repository root.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 65% | Adequate — gated by D2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 43% | Weak — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 58% | Adequate — gated by D8, D9 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 68% | Adequate — gated by D29 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 69 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set 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
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
- AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
- 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 — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface 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
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
- 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.
- 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 — Not assessed: these authorization 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 authorization 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.
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit 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 audit 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.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention 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 retention 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.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights 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 data-subject rights 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.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
- D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- 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.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.py) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. 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
- D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry) — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- 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.
- 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.
- D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .py, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- 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
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check 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 check looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — 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
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, 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'.
- P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
- P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from 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
- 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`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security 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 web-security 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.
- X1 Async correctness — 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
- X2 Cancellation propagation — 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
- X3 Exception handling — 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
- 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
- X5 Nullable reference types — 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
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 20 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:3
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codeql.yml:49
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codeql.yml:53
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codeql.yml:67
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codeql.yml:80
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/gh-reg-publish.yml:39
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/pythonapp.yml:21
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/pythonapp.yml:23
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/pythonpublish.yml:12
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/pythonpublish.yml:14
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/pythonpublish.yml:32
- High: eval-detected salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:326
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0022 Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0029 Dockerfile
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned knowledge salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py
- Orphaned knowledge salt_sproxy/_modules/netbox.py
- Orphaned knowledge salt_sproxy/parsers.py
D28 · Secrets (history)
- Secret: generic-api-key examples/netbox/master:9
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Warning — 31 finding(s)
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: _runners/proxy.py salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:0
- FileTooLong: _modules/netbox.py salt_sproxy/_modules/netbox.py:0
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_6 Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 Dockerfile:1
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:65
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:109
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- proxy.execute_devices (cyclomatic 53) salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:738
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- SaltStandaloneProxy.run (cyclomatic 48) salt_sproxy/cli.py:56
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- proxy.execute (cyclomatic 39) salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:1270
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- SProxyMinion.gen_modules (cyclomatic 31) salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:276
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- proxy.salt_call (cyclomatic 25) salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:504
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- SaltStandaloneProxyOptionParser._mixin_after_parsed (cyclomatic 25) salt_sproxy/parsers.py:570
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- _roster.compound (cyclomatic 23) salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:223
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- _roster.load_cache (cyclomatic 17) salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:26
D16 · Bus Factor
- dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- proxy.execute_devices (cognitive 97) salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:738
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- SaltStandaloneProxyOptionParser._mixin_after_parsed (cognitive 71) salt_sproxy/parsers.py:570
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- proxy.execute (cognitive 58) salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:1270
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- SaltStandaloneProxy.run (cognitive 57) salt_sproxy/cli.py:56
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- _roster.compound (cognitive 50) salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:223
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- SProxyMinion.gen_modules (cognitive 42) salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:276
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- proxy.salt_call (cognitive 39) salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:504
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- _roster.load_cache (cognitive 29) salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:26
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- netbox.openconfig_interfaces (cognitive 25) salt_sproxy/_modules/netbox.py:572
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- Medium: insecure-hash-algorithm-sha1 salt_sproxy/_runners/proxy.py:1489
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] requirements-dev.txt
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) salt_sproxy/cli.py:250
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) salt_sproxy/_roster/__init__.py:128
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) salt_sproxy/_modules/netbox.py:170
Recommendation — 6 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D19 · Documentation Quality
- The 'Usage Examples' section lists links to 101, NAPALM, Ansible, NetBox, Salt API, salt-sapi, Pillar Roster, and File Roster modules but does not mention the main installation or configuration path. examples/README.rst
D28 · Secrets (history)
- Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 1 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 13 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 5 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 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 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 1 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| 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 | — |