EvenireDB — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

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

mizrael/EvenireDB is in a workable but fragile state (49%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.

It is strongest in Architecture (93%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Performance (93%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (38%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Accessibility (44%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: security response headers (Content-Security-Policy (Web-Security Posture); Grow the ADR log (currently 3) (Architecture documentation); Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler) (Keyboard semantics).

For scale: Small (~2,480 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 (93%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 84% ★ Exemplary Architecture 93% ★ Exemplary Maturity 63% Fair · gated by M2 Readiness 38% Fair · gated by P3, P5 Security 71% Fair · gated by D36 Accessibility 44% Fair · gated by AC4 Performance 93% ★ Exemplary

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 20%Plumbing 30%Tests 50%

New since the last scan (6+)

6 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-19) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB src/EvenireDB/EvenireDB.csproj
D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Server src/EvenireDB.Server/EvenireDB.Server.csproj
D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Client src/EvenireDB.Client/EvenireDB.Client.csproj
D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors samples/EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors/EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors.csproj
D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Common src/EvenireDB.Common/EvenireDB.Common.csproj
D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.AdminUI src/EvenireDB.AdminUI/EvenireDB.AdminUI.csproj

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,900–€9,700

Cost to rebuild	€1,900–€9,700 (0.1 person-years (32–102 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 49% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · 46% boilerplate · 14% straight-line · 39% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€5,800 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 38% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — service/app, high decision density × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.

+2.5 pts · Medium effort · Web-Security Posture

Grow the ADR log (currently 3) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.

+2.3 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.

+2.1 pts · Medium effort · Keyboard semantics

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk

This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 38%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (2,480 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 38%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

At a glance — Code Health · 84% · Exemplary

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 10.0 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 8.8 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 9.3 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 9.3 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.8

The Bad

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 9.5 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 10.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 8.7

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	6	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by hardening the web security posture by implementing essential response headers to establish defense in depth. Simultaneously, accelerate the architecture documentation by expanding the ADR log to eight entries to improve maturity. Next, ensure all custom controls are fully keyboard-operable and accessible, while enforcing accessibility standards across the development toolchain and CI pipeline. Finally, correct page structure by adding proper landmarks, titles, and semantic HTML to ensure a solid foundation for all users.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.	+2.5 pts	Medium	Web-Security Posture
Grow the ADR log (currently 3) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.	+2.3 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.	+2.1 pts	Medium	Keyboard semantics
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.	+1.4 pts	Medium	A11y enforcement
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.	+1.4 pts	Medium	Page structure
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.	+1.3 pts	Medium	DR & Backup
Resolve the 6 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with EvenireDB.AdminUI.csproj, EvenireDB.Client.csproj, EvenireDB.Common.csproj.	+0.5 pts	Low	Documentation Quality
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.	+0.9 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 30 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 7% mixed · 93% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
Dockerfile.adminui	4.4	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
Dockerfile.server	4.4	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
src/EvenireDB/Persistence/EventsProvider.cs	6.2	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventsProvider.cs ↔ DataFixture.cs
src/EvenireDB.Server/Program.cs	6.2	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: Program.cs ↔ EventsProvider.cs
src/EvenireDB.Server/Routes/StreamsRoutes.cs	6.6	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/GrpcTests.cs	6.7	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/Routes/EventsV1EndpointTests.cs	6.7	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EvenireDB/ExtentsProvider.cs	6.9	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EvenireDB.Server/DTO/EventDTO.cs	7.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventDTO.cs ↔ Event.cs
src/EvenireDB/EventsWriter.cs	7.3	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/EvenireDB.Tests/ExtentsProviderTests.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions: DeleteExtentsAsync_should_noop_when_stream_does_not_exist
src/EvenireDB.Server/IncomingEventsPersistenceWorker.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: IncomingEventsPersistenceWorker.cs ↔ EventsProvider.cs
src/EvenireDB/EventsProvider.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventsProvider.cs ↔ GlobalUsings.cs
src/EvenireDB/EvenireServerSettings.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EvenireDB/EventIdGenerator.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EvenireDB/StreamInfoProvider.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EvenireDB.Server/Grpc/EventsGrcpServiceImpl.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EvenireDB.Client/IEventsClient.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EvenireDB.Common/StreamType.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/EvenireDB.Client.Tests/GrpcEventsClientTests.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Test Quality: Skipped test: AppendAsync_should_fail_when_events_already_appended

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 62 of 66 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 66 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D36AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P5P6P7PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

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, 76 of 103 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
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.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
jscpd	Code duplication	—	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.301	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.301	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019ee1d9-bfeb-7a3c-bdb0-f721bddf564a.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D33 JS/npm 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.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D38 OSV 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.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
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.
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, and component-wrapped fields (e.g. a <TextField>) are skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native 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. 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.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — only literal inline colours and in-repo <style>-block CSS are read; external stylesheets, CSS-in-JS, computed/runtime/theme colour, and image contrast are all out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the markup 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".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 duplicated block group(s) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.7 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: EvenireDB.Common · ×2

What to do

Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 13 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

119 test methods: 119 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests

Integration tests

BDD tests

E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

4 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, 5 mock references across 119 tests.

No assertions: DeleteExtentsAsync_should_noop_when_stream_does_not_existtests/EvenireDB.Tests/ExtentsProviderTests.cs:119

Skipped test: Post_should_return_conflict_when_input_already_in_stream · ×4tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/GrpcTests.cs:129

Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×5

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 21 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor6.4 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/EvenireDB/Persistence/HeadersRepository.cs, held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com.

Knowledge silo · ×11src/EvenireDB/Persistence/HeadersRepository.cs

Off-boarding risk: 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com

What to do

Resolve the 11 Knowledge silo finding(s) in Bus Factor — start with DataRepository.cs, EventsGrcpServiceImpl.cs, EventsWriter.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt8.8 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

19 deducted debt markers + 3 dead symbols across 2480 LoC (0.6/KLoC) → score 8.8.

TodoComment · ×19src/EvenireDB/EvenireServerSettings.cs:29

Justified suppression · ×4tests/EvenireDB.Tests/DataFixture.cs:28

What to do

Resolve the 19 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with StreamsRoutes.cs (4), ExtentsProvider.cs (3), EventsWriter.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 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.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

12 projects, 127 .cs files, 4973 hand-written lines of code (2480 production / 2493 test), 32 inter-project edges.

Shell project: EvenireDB.Grpcsrc/EvenireDB.Grpc/EvenireDB.Grpc.csproj

EvenireDB (Production)src/EvenireDB/EvenireDB.csproj

EvenireDB.Tests (Test)tests/EvenireDB.Tests/EvenireDB.Tests.csproj

EvenireDB.Server (Production)src/EvenireDB.Server/EvenireDB.Server.csproj

EvenireDB.Server.Tests (Test)tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests.csproj

+ 8 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Poor◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

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

The project documentation is a mix of high-quality internal design documents and sparse external-facing materials. The README provides a functional overview but lacks setup and configuration details. The architecture and design docs are excellent, offering deep technical insights into correctness and performance fixes. However, the XML documentation coverage is abysmally low (0-4% across most projects), indicating a severe lack of inline code documentation. The sample project README is adequate but minimal. The primary issue is the disconnect between the rich external documentation and the near-absence of internal code comments.

Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB · ×6src/EvenireDB/EvenireDB.csproj

This is a third-party license/readme file for 'Open Iconic'. It is not project-specific documentation and likely does not need to be evaluated for project quality, but its presence suggests clutter in the documentation scan.src/EvenireDB.AdminUI/wwwroot/css/open-iconic/README.md

XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Grpc · ×2src/EvenireDB.Grpc/EvenireDB.Grpc.csproj

What to do

Resolve the 6 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with EvenireDB.AdminUI.csproj, EvenireDB.Client.csproj, EvenireDB.Common.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 This is a third-party license/readme file for 'Open Iconic'. It is not… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Healthy◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

2 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Typo in method name: 'DeleteSteam' instead of 'DeleteStream'.

Inconsistent pluralization in method names: 'GetStreamInfo' vs 'GetStreamInfos'.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Typo in method name finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent pluralization in method names finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

0 API inconsistencies across 13 exposed types.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment Value / 10Healthy◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

18 valuable / 12 redundant across 66 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentsrc/EvenireDB.AdminUI/Program.cs:16

What to do

Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 of 12 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

92 % of calls cross a namespace and 5 % go through an interface, but 94 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

High IaC: DS-0002 · ×2Dockerfile.adminuidetected by trivy finding

Medium IaC: DS-0013 · ×2Dockerfile.adminuidetected by trivy finding

Low IaC: DS-0026 · ×2Dockerfile.adminuidetected by trivy finding

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness8.6 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 of 15 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/EvenireDB.Client/GrpcEventsClient.cs.

Orphaned knowledge · ×2src/EvenireDB.Client/GrpcEventsClient.cs

What to do

Resolve the 2 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with GrpcEventsClient.cs, HttpStreamsClient.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling4.6 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: Program.cs↔ServerConfig.cs 92%; FileEventsRepository.cs↔IEventsRepository.cs 88%; FileEventsRepository.cs↔RawEventHeader.cs 86%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: IncomingEventsPersistenceWorker.cs ↔ EventsProvider.cs · ×6src/EvenireDB.Server/IncomingEventsPersistenceWorker.cs

What to do

Resolve the 6 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with EventDTO.cs (2), EventsProvider.cs (2), IncomingEventsPersistenceWorker.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

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

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

Unpinned build actions

No build provenance

No artifact signing

No SBOM

What to do

Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC2 · Forms & labels6.3 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, fieldsets have a legend, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. — StreamEvents.razor:44

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure4.2 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language and title, expose a main landmark and a sane heading order, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. (×2) — Error.cshtml:0, _Layout.cshtml:0
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×2) — Error.cshtml:0, _Layout.cshtml:0
user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta. — Error.cshtml:9
Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. — StreamDetails.razor:64

What to do

Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC4 · Keyboard semantics1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. — _Layout.cshtml:27
A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. — NavMenu.razor:10

What to do

Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, and no aria-hidden on a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible, never computed or runtime colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse wired into tests or CI — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI, graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition8.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs5.5 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`ReadAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. (×2) — GrpcEventsClient.cs:58, EventsProvider.cs:22
`ReadAllAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — IEventsClientExtensions.cs:15
`GetEventsAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — StreamsRoutes.cs:68
`Factory` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — StreamsCache.cs:24
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — EventsWriter.cs:46
A test is skipped ("TBD") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. (×4) — GrpcEventsClientTests.cs:69, HttpEventsClientTests.cs:69, GrpcTests.cs:129, …

What to do

Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.8 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 11 of 12 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.8 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

Grow the ADR log (currently 3) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.

84/106 types (79%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability6.3 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 3/7 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (ActivitySource / AddMetrics) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling1.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.

What to do

Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a BenchmarkDotNet suite, an allocation MemoryDiagnoser, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's GC — Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene8.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Only 39/57 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.

What to do

In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 23/26 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×3) — StreamsRoutes.cs:23, StreamsRoutes.cs:68, StreamsRoutes.cs:82

What to do

Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

~0.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 12 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria — partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
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

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	84%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	93%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Maturity	63%	Fair — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	38%	Fair — gated by P3, P5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	71%	Fair — gated by D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility	44%	Fair — gated by AC4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	93%	Exemplary	Solid.

Not included — 26 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 2 strongly-typed id(s); 4 value object(s)
ED1 Event-Driven — not run — only 1/3 markers (3 event handler(s))
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 9 finding(s)

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×6

Boundary-crossing change coupling: IncomingEventsPersistenceWorker.cs ↔ EventsProvider.cs src/EvenireDB.Server/IncomingEventsPersistenceWorker.cs — `src/EvenireDB.Server/IncomingEventsPersistenceWorker.cs` (context EvenireDB.Server) and `src/EvenireDB/EventsProvider.cs` (context EvenireDB) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 64% of the time (7 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventsProvider.cs ↔ DataFixture.cs src/EvenireDB/Persistence/EventsProvider.cs — `src/EvenireDB/Persistence/EventsProvider.cs` (context EvenireDB) and `tests/EvenireDB.Tests/DataFixture.cs` (context tests) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 58% of the time (7 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: Program.cs ↔ EventsProvider.cs src/EvenireDB.Server/Program.cs — `src/EvenireDB.Server/Program.cs` (context EvenireDB.Server) and `src/EvenireDB/EventsProvider.cs` (context EvenireDB) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 57% of the time (16 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventDTO.cs ↔ Event.cs src/EvenireDB.Server/DTO/EventDTO.cs — `src/EvenireDB.Server/DTO/EventDTO.cs` (context EvenireDB.Server) and `src/EvenireDB/Event.cs` (context EvenireDB) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 57% of the time (8 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventDTO.cs ↔ FileEventsRepository.cs src/EvenireDB.Server/DTO/EventDTO.cs — `src/EvenireDB.Server/DTO/EventDTO.cs` (context EvenireDB.Server) and `src/EvenireDB/FileEventsRepository.cs` (context EvenireDB) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 56% of the time (9 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: EventsProvider.cs ↔ GlobalUsings.cs src/EvenireDB/EventsProvider.cs — `src/EvenireDB/EventsProvider.cs` (context EvenireDB) and `tests/EvenireDB.Tests/GlobalUsings.cs` (context tests) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 54% of the time (7 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×2

High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile.adminui — Image user should not be 'root'
High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile.server — Image user should not be 'root'

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×1

No assertions: DeleteExtentsAsync_should_noop_when_stream_does_not_exist tests/EvenireDB.Tests/ExtentsProviderTests.cs:119 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.

Warning — 48 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×19

TodoComment src/EvenireDB/EvenireServerSettings.cs:29 — // TODO: consider making this a function of max allowed streams count and max event data size — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB/EventIdGenerator.cs:12 — //TODO: tests — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB/EventsWriter.cs:7 — // TODO: append to a transaction log — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB/EventsWriter.cs:43 — // TODO: add a metadata field on the event data, use it to allow check for duplicate events — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB/ExtentsProvider.cs:8 — // TODO: tests — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB/ExtentsProvider.cs:23 — // TODO: calculate — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB/ExtentsProvider.cs:72 — // TODO: this should eventually retrieve all the extents for the stream — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB/Persistence/EventsProvider.cs:13 — //TODO: this should be moved to a locks provider — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB/StreamInfoProvider.cs:54 — //TODO: I don't like this here — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB.Server/Grpc/EventsGrcpServiceImpl.cs:23 — //TODO: is this ok? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB.Server/Program.cs:46 — //TODO: move to a proper logger — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB.Server/Routes/StreamsRoutes.cs:42 — //TODO: test types filter — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB.Server/Routes/StreamsRoutes.cs:67 — //TODO: add max page size — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB.Server/Routes/StreamsRoutes.cs:75 — //TODO: handle malformed stream id — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB.Server/Routes/StreamsRoutes.cs:104 — //TODO: handle malformed stream id — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/GrpcTests.cs:82 — //TODO: from config — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/Routes/EventsV1EndpointTests.cs:61 — //TODO: from config — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB.Client/IEventsClient.cs:7 — //TODO: add response — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/EvenireDB.Common/StreamType.cs:15 — //TODO: add proper validation — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D16 · Bus Factor · Knowledge silo · ×11

Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB/Persistence/HeadersRepository.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB.Server/Routes/StreamsRoutes.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB.Server/Grpc/EventsGrcpServiceImpl.cs — 99 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB/Persistence/DataRepository.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo tools/EvenireDB.Tools.EventsGenerator/Program.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB/ExtentsProvider.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB/IServiceCollectionExtensions.cs — 97 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB.Client/HttpEventsClient.cs — 97 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB/EventsWriter.cs — 99 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB/StreamInfoProvider.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
Knowledge silo src/EvenireDB.Client/HttpStreamsClient.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×6

Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB src/EvenireDB/EvenireDB.csproj — EvenireDB: 3 % XML-doc coverage (4/123).
Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Server src/EvenireDB.Server/EvenireDB.Server.csproj — EvenireDB.Server: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/18).
Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Client src/EvenireDB.Client/EvenireDB.Client.csproj — EvenireDB.Client: 4 % XML-doc coverage (2/48).
Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors samples/EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors/EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors.csproj — EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/11).
Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Common src/EvenireDB.Common/EvenireDB.Common.csproj — EvenireDB.Common: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/38).
Low XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.AdminUI src/EvenireDB.AdminUI/EvenireDB.AdminUI.csproj — EvenireDB.AdminUI: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/11).

D10 · Test Quality · Skipped test · ×4

Skipped test: Post_should_return_conflict_when_input_already_in_stream tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/GrpcTests.cs:129 — Skipped — TBD
Skipped test: Post_should_return_conflict_when_input_already_in_stream tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/Routes/EventsV1EndpointTests.cs:66 — Skipped — TBD
Skipped test: AppendAsync_should_fail_when_events_already_appended tests/EvenireDB.Client.Tests/GrpcEventsClientTests.cs:69 — Skipped — TBD
Skipped test: AppendAsync_should_fail_when_events_already_appended tests/EvenireDB.Client.Tests/HttpEventsClientTests.cs:69 — Skipped — TBD

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×2

Medium IaC: DS-0013 Dockerfile.adminui — 'RUN cd ...' to change directory
Medium IaC: DS-0013 Dockerfile.server — 'RUN cd ...' to change directory

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×2

Orphaned knowledge src/EvenireDB.Client/GrpcEventsClient.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
Orphaned knowledge src/EvenireDB.Client/HttpStreamsClient.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2

Off the main sequence: EvenireDB.Common — EvenireDB.Common: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: EvenireDB.Grpc — EvenireDB.Grpc: abstractness 0.08, instability 0.00, distance 0.92 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1

Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.

Recommendation — 18 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×2

Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile.adminui — No HEALTHCHECK defined
Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile.server — No HEALTHCHECK defined

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com — If 1432872+mizrael@users.noreply.github.com becomes unavailable, 11 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner — the largest single-person knowledge concentration (weighted toward the domain core). Pair, review, or document these before any departure.

D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×1

Shell project: EvenireDB.Grpc src/EvenireDB.Grpc/EvenireDB.Grpc.csproj — `EvenireDB.Grpc` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.

D19 · Documentation Quality · This is a third-party license/readme file for 'Open Iconic'. It is not project-specific documentation and likely does not need to be evaluated for project quality, but its presence suggests clutter in the documentation scan. · ×1

This is a third-party license/readme file for 'Open Iconic'. It is not project-specific documentation and likely does not need to be evaluated for project quality, but its presence suggests clutter in the documentation scan. src/EvenireDB.AdminUI/wwwroot/css/open-iconic/README.md — Consider excluding third-party assets from documentation quality audits or ensure they are clearly marked as such.

D21 · Naming Consistency · Typo in method name · ×1

Typo in method name: 'DeleteSteam' instead of 'DeleteStream'. — Rename to DeleteStreamAsync (symbols: EvenireDB.Server.Routes.StreamsRoutes.DeleteSteamAsync, EvenireDB.Server.Tests.Routes.StreamsV1EndpointTests.DeleteSteamAsync_should_delete_existing_stream)

D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent pluralization in method names · ×1

Inconsistent pluralization in method names: 'GetStreamInfo' vs 'GetStreamInfos'. — Standardize to GetStreamInfoAsync (singular) or GetStreamInfosAsync (plural) consistently. (symbols: EvenireDB.Client.IStreamsClient.GetStreamInfoAsync, EvenireDB.Client.IStreamsClient.GetStreamInfosAsync)

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1

Bounded contexts not declared — A codebase of this scale and complexity likely contains multiple distinct domains, making the absence of declared boundaries a risk for unassessed coupling. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.

D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1

redundant comment src/EvenireDB.AdminUI/Program.cs:16 — "// Configure the HTTP request pipeline." — Remove. This is a standard ASP.NET Core template comment that adds no specific value about this file's unique logic.

D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1

no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.

D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1

No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1

No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI (e.g. cosign / sigstore / gitsign).

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1

No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found (e.g. syft / anchore/sbom-action / *.spdx.json / *.cdx.json).

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.

D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1

No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.

Info — 28 finding(s)

D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×5

Mock framework: NSubstitute — EvenireDB references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — EvenireDB.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — EvenireDB.Server.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — EvenireDB.Client.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — EvenireDB.Tools.Benchmark references NSubstitute.

D17 · Explicit Debt · Justified suppression · ×4

Justified suppression tests/EvenireDB.Tests/DataFixture.cs:28 — empty catch in test code (best-effort teardown)
Justified suppression tests/EvenireDB.Tests/GlobalSuppressions.cs:8 — SuppressMessage
Justified suppression tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/TestServerWebApplicationFactory.cs:37 — empty catch in test code (best-effort teardown)
Justified suppression tools/EvenireDB.Tools.Benchmark/BenchmarkServerFactory.cs:57 — empty catch in test code (best-effort teardown)

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×2

XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Grpc src/EvenireDB.Grpc/EvenireDB.Grpc.csproj — EvenireDB.Grpc: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
XML-doc coverage: EvenireDB.Tools.EventsGenerator tools/EvenireDB.Tools.EventsGenerator/EvenireDB.Tools.EventsGenerator.csproj — EvenireDB.Tools.EventsGenerator: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).

D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1

Licenses scanned — 21 packages scanned; 3 distinct SPDX licenses.

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB (Production) · ×1

EvenireDB (Production) src/EvenireDB/EvenireDB.csproj — 40 .cs files, 1673 LoC (1344 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Tests (Test) · ×1

EvenireDB.Tests (Test) tests/EvenireDB.Tests/EvenireDB.Tests.csproj — 16 .cs files, 1693 LoC (1296 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Server (Production) · ×1

EvenireDB.Server (Production) src/EvenireDB.Server/EvenireDB.Server.csproj — 8 .cs files, 338 LoC (277 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Server.Tests (Test) · ×1

EvenireDB.Server.Tests (Test) tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests/EvenireDB.Server.Tests.csproj — 10 .cs files, 668 LoC (529 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Client (Production) · ×1

EvenireDB.Client (Production) src/EvenireDB.Client/EvenireDB.Client.csproj — 14 .cs files, 456 LoC (364 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Client.Tests (Test) · ×1

EvenireDB.Client.Tests (Test) tests/EvenireDB.Client.Tests/EvenireDB.Client.Tests.csproj — 7 .cs files, 342 LoC (262 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors (Production) · ×1

EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors (Production) samples/EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors/EvenireDB.Samples.TemperatureSensors.csproj — 6 .cs files, 187 LoC (140 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Grpc (Production) · ×1

EvenireDB.Grpc (Production) src/EvenireDB.Grpc/EvenireDB.Grpc.csproj — 0 .cs files, 0 LoC (0 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Common (Production) · ×1

EvenireDB.Common (Production) src/EvenireDB.Common/EvenireDB.Common.csproj — 8 .cs files, 161 LoC (122 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Tools.EventsGenerator (Production) · ×1

EvenireDB.Tools.EventsGenerator (Production) tools/EvenireDB.Tools.EventsGenerator/EvenireDB.Tools.EventsGenerator.csproj — 1 .cs files, 108 LoC (89 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.AdminUI (Production) · ×1

EvenireDB.AdminUI (Production) src/EvenireDB.AdminUI/EvenireDB.AdminUI.csproj — 6 .cs files, 92 LoC (65 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · EvenireDB.Tools.Benchmark (Production) · ×1

EvenireDB.Tools.Benchmark (Production) tools/EvenireDB.Tools.Benchmark/EvenireDB.Tools.Benchmark.csproj — 11 .cs files, 496 LoC (391 significant)

D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1

Unit tests — 119 unit test method(s).

D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1

Integration tests — 0 integration test method(s).

D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1

BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).

D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1

E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list src/EvenireDB.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	0	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	6	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 bin/obj (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, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.	0	—

Run 019ee1d9-bfeb-7a3c-bdb0-f721bddf564a · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Mizrael/EvenireDB

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

At a glance — Code Health · 84% · Exemplary

At a glance — Architecture · 93% · Exemplary

At a glance — Maturity · 63% · Fair · gated by M2

At a glance — Readiness · 38% · Fair · gated by P3, P5

At a glance — Security · 71% · Fair · gated by D36

At a glance — Accessibility · 44% · Fair · gated by AC4

At a glance — Performance · 93% · Exemplary

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts