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.
mkejeiri/Domain-Driven-Design is in good health (81%). It can be evolved and depended on with normal engineering discipline; the items below are improvements, not blockers.
It is strongest in Architecture (100%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (100%) is solid too.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately (Folder & project structure); build/run (quick start) section to the root README (Documentation (README)); Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException… (Incompleteness & stubs).
For scale: Small (~2,007 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
78%
Healthy
Architecture
100% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
72% ★
Exemplary
Readiness
97% ★
Exemplary
Security
100% ★
Exemplary
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 8%Plumbing 72%Tests 17%Generated 3%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,300–€6,400
| Cost to rebuild | €1,300–€6,400 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 1.4× (at 81% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 55% boilerplate · 35% straight-line · 10% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€3,800 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 72% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
2
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
3
Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. The rest can wait behind it.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+7.6 pts/run over 3 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
7.4
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
9.8
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
10.0
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D22 · .NET / C#
Internal API Consistency
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
9.9
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Good
Roadmap
Top priorities: Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root; Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs; Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. | +2.7 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +2.2 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live. | +1.5 pts | Medium | Incompleteness & stubs |
| Resolve the 1 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with TemporaryTest.cs. | +0.7 pts | Low | Test Quality |
| Resolve the 18 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SnackMachineViewModel.cs (8), Atm.cs (2), DomainEvents.cs (2). | +0.5 pts | Medium | Explicit Debt |
| Resolve the 7 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Snack.cs (2), Atm.cs, EventListerner.cs. | +0.2 pts | Low | Explicit Debt |
| Enable measurement for Text alternatives. | unlocks measurement | Low | Text alternatives |
| Enable measurement for Forms & labels. | unlocks measurement | Low | Forms & labels |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| SnackMachineDDD.Tests/TemporaryTest.cs | 6.2 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: Test |
| SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachine/SnackMachineViewModel.cs | 6.4 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Atms/Atm.cs | 6.9 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Common/DomainEvents.cs | 7.3 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/Slot.cs | 7.3 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/Snack.cs | 7.3 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Atms/PaymentGateway.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Utils/EventListerner.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/SnackMachine.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/SnackPile.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| SnackMachineDDD.Tests/SnackMachineSpecs.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| SnackMachineDDD.UI/App.xaml.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| SnackMachineDDD.UI/Common/MainViewModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
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. 31 of 31 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 31 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D15D17D18D22D26D28D29D30D34D35AX10AX3AX5AX6GD1IC1M1M3X1X3X4
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, 29 of 53 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | openai-compatible | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider was unreachable or errored, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D21 Naming Consistency — LLM provider failed — The model provider was unreachable or errored, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider was unreachable or errored, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- 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.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- 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.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- 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").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- 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.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- 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.
- 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 ADVISORY: an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being unhealthy.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
3 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: SnackMachineDDD.Logic
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 11 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
21 test methods: 21 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 21 tests.
No assertions: TestSnackMachineDDD.Tests/TemporaryTest.cs:11
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with TemporaryTest.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
25 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 2007 LoC (1.3/KLoC) → score 7.4.
CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Atms/Atm.cs:47
TodoComment SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Atms/Atm.cs:34
What to do
- Resolve the 18 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SnackMachineViewModel.cs (8), Atm.cs (2), DomainEvents.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
- Resolve the 7 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Snack.cs (2), Atm.cs, EventListerner.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
3 projects, 55 .cs files, 2419 hand-written lines of code (2007 production / 412 test), plus 76 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 2 inter-project edges (build failed).
Build did not complete in the analyzer
SnackMachineDDD.Logic (Production)SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachineDDD.Logic.csproj
SnackMachineDDD.Tests (Test)SnackMachineDDD.Tests/SnackMachineDDD.Tests.csproj
SnackMachineDDD.UI (Production)SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachineDDD.UI.csproj
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API Consistency
No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.
No exposed public API
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 3 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
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?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×6) — EventListerner.cs:47, EventListerner.cs:48, EventListerner.cs:49, …
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `GetAllWithSnack` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — SnackMachineRepository.cs:13
- `GetAllWithMoneyInside` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — SnackMachineRepository.cs:18
- `OnPostInsertAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventListerner.cs:47
- `OnPostDeleteAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventListerner.cs:48
- `OnPostUpdateAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventListerner.cs:49
- `OnPostUpdateCollectionAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventListerner.cs:50
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×24) — Atm.cs:41, Atm.cs:49, Atm.cs:50, …
What to do
- Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
- 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)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add a README to the 3 of 3 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 78% | Healthy | Solid. |
| Architecture | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 72% | Exemplary | Largest drag on the score — prioritise here. |
| Readiness | 97% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Security | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
Not included — 60 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- 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.
- D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
- D14 License Compliance — License scan unavailable
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- 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.
- D21 Naming Consistency — LLM evaluation failed
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Dimension evaluation failed
- D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
- D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 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 — not run — only 2/3 markers (4 aggregate root(s) (AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot); 1 domain event(s))
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — only 1/3 markers (2 CQRS 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
- M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
- M4 Documentation accuracy — LLM accuracy check could not reach the model — accuracy is advisory and stays neutral.
- P1 CI/CD gates — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Automated CI/CD gates are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P2 Observability — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Structured logging, tracing/metrics and health checks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 2 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- No assertions: Test SnackMachineDDD.Tests/TemporaryTest.cs:11
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Dimension evaluation failed
Warning — 31 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Atms/Atm.cs:47
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Atms/Atm.cs:54
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Common/DomainEvents.cs:97
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Common/DomainEvents.cs:142
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/Slot.cs:14
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/Slot.cs:28
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/SnackMachine.cs:147
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.Tests/TemporaryTest.cs:18
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/App.xaml.cs:8
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/Common/MainViewModel.cs:27
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachine/SnackMachineViewModel.cs:93
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachine/SnackMachineViewModel.cs:130
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachine/SnackMachineViewModel.cs:144
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachine/SnackMachineViewModel.cs:155
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachine/SnackMachineViewModel.cs:183
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachine/SnackMachineViewModel.cs:195
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachine/SnackMachineViewModel.cs:201
- CommentedOutCode SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachine/SnackMachineViewModel.cs:207
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Atms/Atm.cs:34
- TodoComment SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Atms/PaymentGateway.cs:8
- TodoComment SnackMachineDDD.Logic/Utils/EventListerner.cs:46
- TodoComment SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/Snack.cs:7
- TodoComment SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/Snack.cs:9
- TodoComment SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachine/SnackPile.cs:21
- TodoComment SnackMachineDDD.Tests/SnackMachineSpecs.cs:85
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D21 · Naming Consistency
- LLM evaluation failed
D24 · Comment Value
- LLM evaluation failed
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: SnackMachineDDD.Logic
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 11 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- No tests discovered
D14 · License Compliance
- License scan unavailable
D25 · ADR Conformance
- no ADRs to check
D27 · Navigability
- Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Not applicable
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)
- Not applicable
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Not applicable
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
- Not applicable
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D7 · Architectural Integrity
- No checkable ADRs to assess
Info — 9 finding(s)
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build did not complete in the analyzer
D18 · Solution Shape
- SnackMachineDDD.Logic (Production) SnackMachineDDD.Logic/SnackMachineDDD.Logic.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- SnackMachineDDD.Tests (Test) SnackMachineDDD.Tests/SnackMachineDDD.Tests.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- SnackMachineDDD.UI (Production) SnackMachineDDD.UI/SnackMachineDDD.UI.csproj
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D9 · Test Distribution
- Unit tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- Integration tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- BDD tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- E2E tests
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list SnackMachineDDD.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 0 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| 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 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 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 | — |