Public report — POS, published 29 Jul 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 29-07-2026 @ 20:31 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Mohamedelareeg/POS

no automated testsbounded contexts not declared
42% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
upper third — near Adequate
Architecture 96% Exemplary Code Health 61% Adequate Security 59% Adequate Maturity 59% Adequate Readiness 20% Critical

Small · 18,249 LoC · 5 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (20%)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

43/45dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 2 LLM-assisted, advisory
56findings with an exact file:lineof 93 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
45/96dimensions across the health lenses18249 LoC · 5 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

mohamedelareeg/POS carries serious gaps (42%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.

It is strongest in Architecture (96%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (20%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (59%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage (Code Coverage).

For scale: Small (~18,249 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 (96%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 61% Adequate Architecture 96% ★ Exemplary Maturity 59% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 20% ⚠ Critical · gated by D8, D9, P1, P2, P3 Security 59% Adequate · gated by C1
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 20% · 47% weightMaturity 59% · 26% weightSecurity 59% · 14% weightCode Health 61% · 8% weightArchitecture 96% · 4% weight

Raise Readiness 20 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 42 → ~62.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 6%Plumbing 32%Generated 62%
New since the last scan (2+)

2 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) POS/Views/HomeWindow.xaml.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs

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 — €6,600–€33,000
Cost to rebuild€6,600–€33,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (109–345 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 42% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 28% boilerplate · 56% straight-line · 16% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€20,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 20% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.3) — desktop/game, DDD/clean architecture × 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.

1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
+19.6 pts · Low effort · Code Coverage
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
+19.6 pts · Low effort · Test Distribution
3
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
+21.8 pts · Medium effort · CI/CD gates

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 20%. 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 (18,249 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 20%
→ 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 a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

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.

arch POS POS POS.Infrustructure Infrustructure POS->POS.Infrustructure POS.Persistence Persistence POS->POS.Persistence POS.Application Application POS.Domain Domain POS.Application->POS.Domain POS.Persistence->POS.Application

At a glance — Code Health · 61% · Adequate

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.8 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 9.3 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.3 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 8.6 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.8 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 8.3 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 10.0
The Bad
D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 6.9 X1 · Repo Async correctness 5.1
The Ugly
X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 4.8

At a glance — Architecture · 96% · Exemplary

The Good
D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 8.9 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.3 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.6 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0
The Bad
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 6.8

At a glance — Maturity · 59% · Adequate · gated by M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 7.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 6.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 6.0
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 20% · Critical · gated by D8, D9, P1, P2, P3

The Good
D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 8.6 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0
The Ugly
D8 · .NET / C# Code Coverage 0.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P2 · Repo Observability 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 59% · Adequate · gated by C1

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 C3 · Repo Audit Trail 7.5
The Ugly
C1 · Repo Data Protection 2.5

Roadmap

First, establish a continuous integration workflow to automatically build and test every push or pull request. Next, implement structured logging across all services to improve observability and monitoring. Then, address the single gap in automated testing to ensure code coverage. Finally, update deprecated dependencies to maintain system hygiene and security.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.+19.6 ptsLowCode Coverage
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.+19.6 ptsLowTest Distribution
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+21.8 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.+21.8 ptsMediumObservability
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+6.6 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+2.8 ptsLowADR Quality
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+3.3 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.+3.2 ptsMediumFolder & project structure

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 16 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 62% mixed · 38% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
POS/Components/WindowHeader.xaml.cs5.4MixedExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
POS/ViewModels/Base/BaseProductsViewModel.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
POS.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
POS/Views/HomeWindow.xaml.cs7.0MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)
POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs7.1MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (29 lines × 4)
POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs7.2MixedCognitive Complexity: POSViewModel.ExecuteAcceptCommand (cognitive 24)
POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs7.2MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
POS.Persistence/Context/AppDbContext.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges (cyclomatic 16)
POS/ViewModels/ViewEditInvoiceViewModel.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
POS/App.xaml.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
POS/AuthenticationService.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
POS/SaleCalculator.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
POS/ViewModels/SalesHistoryViewModel.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
README.md9.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Prerequisites (e.g. .NET SDK version) and installation steps are missing from the visible text.

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. 43 of 45 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 45 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D20D21D26D27D28D29D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5C1C3GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P8X1X2X3X4X5

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
  1. 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, 56 of 93 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019faf93-60c8-7a78-bbb5-c289044b7778.

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.

  • D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.

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 (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • 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.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • 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.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • 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.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • 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 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.
  • C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
  • 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.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D20, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). 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 Complexity9.8 / 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges at 16.

AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges (cyclomatic 16)POS.Persistence/Context/AppDbContext.cs:89

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.3 / 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was POSViewModel.ExecuteAcceptCommand at 24.

POSViewModel.ExecuteAcceptCommand (cognitive 24)POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs:180
AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges (cognitive 23)POS.Persistence/Context/AppDbContext.cs:89

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D3 · God Classes9.3 / 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 god class(es) detected.

FileTooLong: ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.csPOS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:0
TooManyMethods: InventoryViewModelPOS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:0
ClassTooLong: BaseProductsViewModelPOS/ViewModels/Base/BaseProductsViewModel.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

14 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×2POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:368
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs:48
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×2POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:146
Duplicated block (29 lines × 4)POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:262
Duplicated block (23 lines × 5)POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:318

+ 6 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D5 · Coupling6.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: POS.Domain · ×2

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Coupling in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 22 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: HomeWindow (LCOM4 7) · ×2POS/Views/HomeWindow.xaml.cs:16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with HomeWindow.xaml.cs, InventoryViewModel.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cohesion (LCOM4) in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D8 · Code Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.

Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.

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

No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.

No automated tests

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Coverage in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No test suite found.

No tests found

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D12 · Dependency Hygiene8.6 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

19 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages.

Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity
Outdated: FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions · ×19

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Dependency Hygiene in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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.

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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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.

git history depth insufficient

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt8.6 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

28 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 13204 LoC (0.7/KLoC) → score 8.6.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×5POS/Components/WindowHeader.xaml.cs:37
CommentedOutCode · ×23POS.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs:42

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with WindowHeader.xaml.cs (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 23 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with InventoryViewModel.cs (10), BaseProductsViewModel.cs (4), Product.cs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 warning-level).
  3. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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.

D18 · Solution Shape6.9 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 projects, 109 source files, 13204 hand-written lines of code (13204 production / 0 test), plus 29442 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 7 inter-project edges.

Thin analysable surface across projects

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Adequate◐ 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 Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The README is a solid single document for the POS application, covering features (WPF UI, Clean Architecture, Entity Framework Core with SQLite and Identity, FluentValidation, LiveCharts.Wpf, ZXing.Net barcode scanning), screenshots, and an outline of unshown projects/sections. It states intent but shows no prerequisites, installation, or usage content, so those gaps are not yet visible.

Prerequisites (e.g. .NET SDK version) and installation steps are missing from the visible text.README.md
XML-doc coverage: POS · ×5POS/POS.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Prerequisites (e.g. .NET SDK version) and installation steps are missing… 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.

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Strong◐ 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 Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

3 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

The word 'Management' is misspelled as 'Mangment' in the class name and potentially other related symbols.
Inconsistent naming for product types. 'Product' is used for the base/general entity, while specific types use 'Product' as a suffix (PurchaseProduct, SaleProduct) or prefix (QuotedProduct).
The concept of a 'Contact' or 'Contact Person' is represented by 'ContactName' in Supplier and CompanyInfo, but 'Customer' and 'Supplier' entities likely have their own contact details. The naming 'ContactName' is specific, but the lack of a unified 'Contact' entity or consistent 'Contact' property names across all business entities is an inconsistency.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 The word 'Management' is misspelled as 'Mangment' in the class name and… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for product types. 'Product' is used for the… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 The concept of a 'Contact' or 'Contact Person' is represented by… 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.

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 5 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability9.3 / 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

91 % of calls cross a namespace and 1 % go through an interface, but 93 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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.

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 across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. 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.

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

git history depth insufficient

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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.

AX10 · Code composition9.6 / 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

C1 · Data Protection2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.

What to do

  • Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
  • Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
C3 · Audit Trail7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether changes to sensitive data are recorded (who, what, when) for compliance + incident response.

Method: Roslyn scan: audit-trail mechanism graded (SaveChanges interceptor/immutable AuditLog/[Audited] strong; bare IAuditable/AddAuditing weak). Deterministic.

  • An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent write-side hook, e.g. an event-store append every change flows through), [Audited] per-entity coverage.

What to do

  • Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent) writing every sensitive change to an immutable audit log, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×4) — StateToEnabledConverter.cs:17, StateToReadOnlyConverter.cs:19, StateToVisibilityConverter.cs:19, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs8.3 / 10Strong✓ 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.

  • `HandleRequirementAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — PermissionAuthorizationHandler.cs:12
  • `ExecuteRecoverPassCommand` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — LoginViewModel.cs:157
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×28) — AppDbContext.cs:69, App.xaml.cs:24, App.xaml.cs:44, …

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.
M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Strong✓ 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 a README to the 5 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
  • Tests aren't grouped in a dedicated test 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 tests in the folder your build system expects (tests/, test/, spec/, or your module's test source set) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
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.

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P2 · Observability0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.

What to do

  • Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

X1 · Async correctness5.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained. (×7) — LoginViewModel.cs:104, RegisterViewModel.cs:106, RolesPermissionsViewModel.cs:266, …

What to do

  • async void method: ExecuteLoginCommand
X2 · Cancellation propagation4.0 / 10Weak✓ 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 0/39 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×25) — AuthenticationService.cs:25, AuthenticationService.cs:41, AuthenticationService.cs:53, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling4.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×5) — WindowHeader.xaml.cs:37, WindowHeader.xaml.cs:63, WindowHeader.xaml.cs:82, …

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (empty catch)
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.

X5 · Nullable reference types10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health61%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Architecture96%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity59%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness20%Critical — gated by D8, D9, P1, P2, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security59%Adequate — gated by C1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 51 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 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.
  • AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D10 Test Quality — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
  • D16 Bus Factor — early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • 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
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance 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.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • 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 — 6 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×5
  • EmptyCatchBlock POS/Components/WindowHeader.xaml.cs:37 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock POS/Components/WindowHeader.xaml.cs:63 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock POS/Components/WindowHeader.xaml.cs:82 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock POS/Components/WindowHeader.xaml.cs:94 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock POS/Components/WindowHeader.xaml.cs:113 — empty catch block
D8 · Code Coverage · No automated tests · ×1
  • No automated tests — No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely.
Warning — 49 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×23
  • CommentedOutCode POS.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs:42 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/ViewEditInvoiceViewModel.cs:203 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs:46 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs:53 — 15 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/App.xaml.cs:90 — 9 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/AuthenticationService.cs:412 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/Base/BaseProductsViewModel.cs:573 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/Base/BaseProductsViewModel.cs:602 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1536 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1548 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/SaleCalculator.cs:37 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/Base/BaseProductsViewModel.cs:579 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/Base/BaseProductsViewModel.cs:608 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1232 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1396 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1401 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1421 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1426 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1431 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/SalesHistoryViewModel.cs:544 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1214 — 11 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:1238 — 8 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:168 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:368 — POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:368-384 | POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:368-384 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:416 — POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:416-432 | POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:416-432 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs:48 — POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs:48-62 | POS/ViewModels/PriceQuotationViewModel.cs:47-61 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) POS/Views/HomeWindow.xaml.cs:92 — POS/Views/HomeWindow.xaml.cs:92-121 | POS/Views/HomeWindow.xaml.cs:184-198 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:146 — POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:146-157 | POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:337-348 | POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:337-348 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:183 — POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:183-194 | POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:393-404 | POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:393-404 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2
  • Off the main sequence: POS.Domain — POS.Domain: 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: POS.Infrustructure — POS.Infrustructure: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2
  • Low cohesion: HomeWindow (LCOM4 7) POS/Views/HomeWindow.xaml.cs:16 — HomeWindow's methods form 7 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: InventoryViewModel (LCOM4 5) POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:19 — InventoryViewModel's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges (cyclomatic 16) POS.Persistence/Context/AppDbContext.cs:89 — AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×1
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · POSViewModel.ExecuteAcceptCommand (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • POSViewModel.ExecuteAcceptCommand (cognitive 24) POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs:180 — POSViewModel.ExecuteAcceptCommand has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges (cognitive 23) POS.Persistence/Context/AppDbContext.cs:89 — AppDbContext.OnBeforeSaveChanges has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1
  • LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.notable[5].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 969.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1
  • FileTooLong: ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 916 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded).
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1
  • TooManyMethods: InventoryViewModel POS/ViewModels/InventoryViewModel.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 900 lines, 37 methods.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: BaseProductsViewModel POS/ViewModels/Base/BaseProductsViewModel.cs:0 — ClassTooLong — 402 lines, 15 methods.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (29 lines × 4) POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:262 — POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:262-290 | POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:493-521 | POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:493-521 | POS/ViewModels/AddWarehousesDialogViewModel.cs:325-353 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (23 lines × 5) POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:318 — POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:318-340 | POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:549-571 | POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:549-571 | POS/ViewModels/AddWarehousesDialogViewModel.cs:256-278 | POS/ViewModels/CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.cs:383-405 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:117 — POS/ViewModels/AddCategoriesDialogViewModel.cs:117-129 | POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:294-306 | POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:294-306 | POS/ViewModels/AddWarehousesDialogViewModel.cs:131-144 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs:255 — POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs:255-267 | POS/ViewModels/PriceQuotationViewModel.cs:228-240 | POS/ViewModels/PurchaseProductsViewModel.cs:209-221 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:317 — POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:317-329 | POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:317-329 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:460 — POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:460-471 | POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:460-471 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs:145 — POS/ViewModels/POSViewModel.cs:145-155 | POS/ViewModels/PriceQuotationViewModel.cs:144-154 | POS/ViewModels/PurchaseProductsViewModel.cs:104-114 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:200 — POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:200-210 | POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:265-275 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Recommendation — 11 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1
  • Test reliability not included — No test suite was found, so reliability couldn't be assessed.
D16 · Bus Factor · early-stage repository · ×1
  • early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor — early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor (2 author(s) across 13 commit(s) sampled).
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects — 2 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `POS.Application` with 11 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 61 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 3.1 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Prerequisites (e.g. .NET SDK version) and installation steps are missing from the visible text. · ×1
  • Prerequisites (e.g. .NET SDK version) and installation steps are missing from the visible text. README.md — Add a Prerequisites section listing required .NET versions, NuGet packages, and any platform-specific setup.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D21 · Naming Consistency · The word 'Management' is misspelled as 'Mangment' in the class name and potentially other related symbols. · ×1
  • The word 'Management' is misspelled as 'Mangment' in the class name and potentially other related symbols. — Rename 'UserMangment' to 'UserManagement' to correct the spelling. (symbols: POS.ViewModels.UserMangmentViewModel, POS.ViewModels.UserMangmentViewModel.Email, POS.ViewModels.UserMangmentViewModel.Password, POS.ViewModels.UserMangmentViewModel.EditCommand, POS.ViewModels.UserMangmentViewModel.UserName, POS.ViewModels.UserMangmentViewModel.Add, POS.ViewModels.UserMangmentViewModel.Edit)
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent naming for product types. 'Product' is used for the base/general entity, while specific types use 'Product' as a suffix (PurchaseProduct, SaleProduct) or prefix (QuotedProduct). · ×1
  • Inconsistent naming for product types. 'Product' is used for the base/general entity, while specific types use 'Product' as a suffix (PurchaseProduct, SaleProduct) or prefix (QuotedProduct). — Consider a consistent naming convention, such as 'PurchaseProduct', 'SaleProduct', 'QuotedProduct' (all suffixes) or 'Purchase', 'Sale', 'Quotation' (all prefixes). (symbols: POS.Domain.Models.Products.Product, POS.Domain.Models.Products.PurchaseProduct, POS.Domain.Models.Products.QuotedProduct, POS.Domain.Models.Products.SaleProduct)
D21 · Naming Consistency · The concept of a 'Contact' or 'Contact Person' is represented by 'ContactName' in Supplier and CompanyInfo, but 'Customer' and 'Supplier' entities likely have their own contact details. The naming 'ContactName' is specific, but the lack of a unified 'Contact' entity or consistent 'Contact' property names across all business entities is an inconsistency. · ×1
  • The concept of a 'Contact' or 'Contact Person' is represented by 'ContactName' in Supplier and CompanyInfo, but 'Customer' and 'Supplier' entities likely have their own contact details. The naming 'ContactName' is specific, but the lack of a unified 'Contact' entity or consistent 'Contact' property names across all business entities is an inconsistency. — Ensure all business entities (Customer, Supplier, Company) have a consistent 'Contact' or 'ContactDetails' property or entity. (symbols: POS.Domain.Models.Customer, POS.Domain.Models.Supplier, POS.Domain.Models.CompanyInfo)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 13204 LoC spread over 5 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["Acme.Catalog"]`.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · early-stage repository · ×1
  • early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness (13 commit(s) sampled).
D9 · Test Distribution · No tests found · ×1
  • No tests found — No test suite was found in this repository.
Info — 27 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×19
  • Outdated: FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions — FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions 11.9.0 → 12.1.1 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: MahApps.Metro — MahApps.Metro 2.4.10 → 2.4.11 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: MaterialDesignColors — MaterialDesignColors 2.1.4 → 5.3.2 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: MaterialDesignThemes — MaterialDesignThemes 4.9.0 → 5.3.2 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity 2.2.0 → 2.3.11 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore 8.0.1 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 8.0.1 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design 8.0.1 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools 8.0.1 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration — Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration 8.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions 8.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 8.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: System.Drawing.Common — System.Drawing.Common 8.0.1 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: ZXing.Net.Bindings.Windows.Compatibility — ZXing.Net.Bindings.Windows.Compatibility 0.16.12 → 0.16.14 available (referenced by POS).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 8.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS.Application).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authorization — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authorization 8.0.1 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS.Persistence).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational 8.0.1 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS.Persistence).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite 8.0.1 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by POS.Persistence).
  • Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 13.0.3 → 13.0.4 available (referenced by POS.Persistence).
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×5
  • XML-doc coverage: POS POS/POS.csproj — POS: 5 % XML-doc coverage (31/633).
  • XML-doc coverage: POS.Domain POS.Domain/POS.Domain.csproj — POS.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/322).
  • XML-doc coverage: POS.Application POS.Application/POS.Application.csproj — POS.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).
  • XML-doc coverage: POS.Persistence POS.Persistence/POS.Persistence.csproj — POS.Persistence: 24 % XML-doc coverage (26/108).
  • XML-doc coverage: POS.Infrustructure POS.Infrustructure/POS.Infrustructure.csproj — POS.Infrustructure: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · git history depth insufficient · ×1
  • git history depth insufficient — git history depth insufficient — install a full clone for reliable trend signal.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D35 · Change Coupling · git history depth insufficient · ×1
  • git history depth insufficient — git history depth insufficient — a full clone gives reliable change-coupling.

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—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 ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—

Run 019faf93-60c8-7a78-bbb5-c289044b7778 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 60 field(s) across 5 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Email — 16 field(s)
  • CompanyInfo._email POS.Domain/Models/CompanyInfo.cs:26
  • CompanyInfo.Email POS.Domain/Models/CompanyInfo.cs:27
  • Customer._email POS.Domain/Models/Customer.cs:26
  • Customer.Email POS.Domain/Models/Customer.cs:27
  • Supplier._email POS.Domain/Models/Supplier.cs:25
  • Supplier.Email POS.Domain/Models/Supplier.cs:26
  • AddCustomersDialogViewModel._email POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:59
  • AddCustomersDialogViewModel.Email POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:60
  • AddSuppliersDialogViewModel._email POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:59
  • AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.Email POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:60
  • CompanyInfoDialogViewModel._email POS/ViewModels/CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.cs:58
  • CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.Email POS/ViewModels/CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.cs:59
  • RegisterViewModel._email POS/ViewModels/RegisterViewModel.cs:14
  • RegisterViewModel.Email POS/ViewModels/RegisterViewModel.cs:27
  • UserMangmentViewModel._email POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:45
  • UserMangmentViewModel.Email POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:46
Phone — 16 field(s)
  • CompanyInfo._phone POS.Domain/Models/CompanyInfo.cs:33
  • CompanyInfo.Phone POS.Domain/Models/CompanyInfo.cs:34
  • Customer._phone POS.Domain/Models/Customer.cs:33
  • Customer.Phone POS.Domain/Models/Customer.cs:34
  • Supplier._phone POS.Domain/Models/Supplier.cs:32
  • Supplier.Phone POS.Domain/Models/Supplier.cs:33
  • AddCustomersDialogViewModel._phone POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:73
  • AddCustomersDialogViewModel.Phone POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:74
  • AddSuppliersDialogViewModel._phone POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:73
  • AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.Phone POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:74
  • CompanyInfoDialogViewModel._phone POS/ViewModels/CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.cs:72
  • CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.Phone POS/ViewModels/CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.cs:73
  • RegisterViewModel._phoneNumber POS/ViewModels/RegisterViewModel.cs:12
  • RegisterViewModel.PhoneNumber POS/ViewModels/RegisterViewModel.cs:69
  • UserMangmentViewModel._phoneNumber POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:66
  • UserMangmentViewModel.PhoneNumber POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:67
Address — 12 field(s)
  • CompanyInfo._postalCode POS.Domain/Models/CompanyInfo.cs:68
  • CompanyInfo.PostalCode POS.Domain/Models/CompanyInfo.cs:69
  • Customer._postalCode POS.Domain/Models/Customer.cs:68
  • Customer.PostalCode POS.Domain/Models/Customer.cs:69
  • Supplier._postalCode POS.Domain/Models/Supplier.cs:67
  • Supplier.PostalCode POS.Domain/Models/Supplier.cs:68
  • AddCustomersDialogViewModel._postalCode POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:129
  • AddCustomersDialogViewModel.PostalCode POS/ViewModels/AddCustomersDialogViewModel.cs:130
  • AddSuppliersDialogViewModel._postalCode POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:129
  • AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.PostalCode POS/ViewModels/AddSuppliersDialogViewModel.cs:130
  • CompanyInfoDialogViewModel._postalCode POS/ViewModels/CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.cs:128
  • CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.PostalCode POS/ViewModels/CompanyInfoDialogViewModel.cs:129
Name — 11 field(s)
  • ApplicationUser.FirstName POS.Persistence/Models/ApplicationUser.cs:7
  • ApplicationUser.LastName POS.Persistence/Models/ApplicationUser.cs:8
  • ApplicationUser.FullName POS.Persistence/Models/ApplicationUser.cs:9
  • RegisterViewModel._firstName POS/ViewModels/RegisterViewModel.cs:10
  • RegisterViewModel._lastName POS/ViewModels/RegisterViewModel.cs:11
  • RegisterViewModel.FirstName POS/ViewModels/RegisterViewModel.cs:57
  • RegisterViewModel.LastName POS/ViewModels/RegisterViewModel.cs:63
  • UserMangmentViewModel._firstName POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:52
  • UserMangmentViewModel.FirstName POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:53
  • UserMangmentViewModel._lastName POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:59
  • UserMangmentViewModel.LastName POS/ViewModels/UserMangmentViewModel.cs:60
Financial (card / IBAN) — 5 field(s)
  • InvoicePayment._creditCardId POS.Domain/Models/Payments/InvoicePayment.cs:169
  • InvoicePayment.CreditCardId POS.Domain/Models/Payments/InvoicePayment.cs:170
  • InvoicePayment._creditCard POS.Domain/Models/Payments/InvoicePayment.cs:183
  • InvoicePayment.CreditCard POS.Domain/Models/Payments/InvoicePayment.cs:184
  • AppDbContext.CreditCards POS.Persistence/Context/AppDbContext.cs:48

Issues: 6 · Warnings: 49 · Recommendations: 11 · Info: 27 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 29-07-2026 @ 20:31 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md