Public report of mostafasharaby/E-Commerce-Microservices, published 22 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 22 October 2026, 01:39 UTC · Survey ID cd_17c6737dfed540b3aab5d524ac134977

mostafasharaby/E-Commerce-Microservices

Measured 22 October 2026, 01:34 UTC, at code version 6550ae1

CAI score 44out of 100 Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Up 2 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Event-Driven 100 Exemplary Performance 100 Exemplary Domain Modelling 87 Strong Architecture 77 Strong Code Health 74 Strong Security and Compliance 51 Adequate Maturity 49 Weak Production Readiness 26 Weak

A small codebase: 6,469 lines of product code in 37 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.1 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 26

Findings by how serious they are

24 critical 191 serious 140 minor

8 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
22 October 2026, 01:34 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

84of 89 dimensions measured by tools. The other 5 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
335of 355 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 20 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
89dimensions across 8 lenses, read from 6,469 lines of product code in 37 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

mostafasharaby/E-Commerce-Microservices scores 44 out of 100 and is rated Weak, while seven of its eight lenses score higher still: Event-Driven and Performance at 100, both rated Exemplary, Domain Modelling at 87, Architecture at 77 and Code Health at 74, all rated Strong, Security and Compliance at 51, rated Adequate, and Maturity at 49, rated Weak.

The score is lower than those seven because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 26 and is rated Weak. Its CI/CD gates dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 44 to about 57.

24 findings are critical: ten in Coupling, ten in Dependency direction, three in Explicit Debt and one in Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary.

Watchdog couldn't measure 5 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Dependency Hygiene and Solution Shape, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 6,469 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €14,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 74 Strong Architecture 77 Strong Maturity 49 Weak, capped by Knowledge Freshness and Architecture documentation Production Readiness 26 Weak, capped by CI/CD gates, Security & performance tooling and DR & Backup Security and Compliance 51 Adequate, capped by Static Analysis (SAST) and Data Protection Domain Modelling 87 Strong Event-Driven 100 ★ Exemplary Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Production Readiness 26 · counts for 45%Maturity 49 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 51 · counts for 14%Code Health 74 · counts for 8%Architecture 77 · counts for 4%Domain Modelling 87 · counts for 2%Event-Driven 100 · counts for 1%Performance 100 · counts for 1%

If Production Readiness rose from 26 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 44 to about 57.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Business logic 11%Supporting code 57%Tests 15%Generated by tools 16%
New since the last survey: 128 findings

These 128 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026. The first 100 are listed here, and the findings file in the download package lists them all.

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 4 findings

These 4 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

  • Coupling · Off the main sequence: WishlistService.Domain
  • Coupling · Off the main sequence: OrderService.Domain
  • Async correctness · Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/ApiGateWay/ApiGateWay.Api/Program.cs
  • Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience
Rebuild cost: about €14,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€4,600 to €23,000, for 76 to 240 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemVery high, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.7 at a score of 44. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeSmall: 6,469 lines of product code, of which 43% is declarations and boilerplate, 40% straight logic and 17% logic with branches

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Raises the score by about 5 points · Medium effort · CI/CD gates
3
Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Raises the score by about 5 points · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €14,000 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 26 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 4 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

arch Api Api ctx:Auth Auth Application · Domain · Infrastructure Api->ctx:Auth ctx:Shared Shared Shared Api->ctx:Shared Auth.Api Auth.Api Auth.Api->ctx:Auth CartService.Api CartService.Api ctx:CartService CartService Application · Domain · Infrastructure CartService.Api->ctx:CartService CartService.Api->ctx:Shared InventoryService.Api InventoryService.Api ctx:InventoryService InventoryService Application · Domain · Infrastructure InventoryService.Api->ctx:InventoryService OrderService.Api OrderService.Api ctx:OrderService OrderService Application · Domain · Infrastructure OrderService.Api->ctx:OrderService ctx:Payment Payment Application · Domain · Infrastructure OrderService.Api->ctx:Payment OrderService.Api->ctx:Shared Payment.Api Payment.Api Payment.Api->ctx:Payment ctx:ProductService ProductService Application · Domain · Infrastructure Payment.Api->ctx:ProductService ProductService.Api ProductService.Api ProductService.Api->ctx:ProductService WishlistService.Api WishlistService.Api ctx:WishlistService WishlistService Application · Domain · Infrastructure WishlistService.Api->ctx:WishlistService ctx:Auth->ctx:Shared ctx:CartService->ctx:InventoryService ctx:CartService->ctx:ProductService ctx:CartService->ctx:Shared ctx:InventoryService->ctx:Shared ctx:OrderService->ctx:CartService ctx:OrderService->ctx:InventoryService ctx:OrderService->ctx:Payment ctx:OrderService->ctx:ProductService ctx:OrderService->ctx:Shared ctx:Payment->ctx:Shared ctx:ProductService->ctx:InventoryService ctx:ProductService->ctx:Shared ctx:WishlistService->ctx:Shared

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

122 modules, with 167 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 82 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 Auth.Domain.Entities2 Auth.Domain.Responses3 CartService.Domain.Dtos4 InventoryService.Domain.Dtos5 InventoryService.Domain.Entities6 Payment.Domain.Entities7 ProductService.Domain.Dtos8 ProductService.Domain.Entities9 Shared10 Shared.Bases11 Shared.Interfaces12 Shared.RedisCache13 Auth.Application.Commands14 Auth.Application.Queries15 Auth.Infrastructure.Interfaces16 CartService.Application.Commands17 CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces18 InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces19 OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces20 Payment.Application.Commands21 Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces22 ProductService.Application.Commands23 ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces24 Shared.Repository25 WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces26 Auth.Application.Helpers27 Auth.Infrastructure.Services28 CartService.Application.Handlers29 CartService.Infrastructure.Repositories30 InventoryService.Application.Handlers31 InventoryService.Infrastructure.Repositories32 OrderService.Application.Handlers33 OrderService.Infrastructure.Repositories34 Payment.Application.Handlers35 Payment.Infrastructure.Repositories36 ProductService.Application.Handlers37 ProductService.Infrastructure.Repositories38 WishlistService.Application.Handlers39 WishlistService.Infrastructure.Repositories40 Auth.Application.Handlers
1 Auth.Domain.Entities
2 Auth.Domain.Responses
3 CartService.Domain.Dtos
4 InventoryService.Domain.Dtos
5 InventoryService.Domain.Entities
6 Payment.Domain.Entities
7 ProductService.Domain.Dtos
8 ProductService.Domain.Entities
9 Shared
10 Shared.Bases
11 Shared.Interfaces
12 Shared.RedisCache
13 Auth.Application.Commands1311
14 Auth.Application.Queries1
15 Auth.Infrastructure.Interfaces12
16 CartService.Application.Commands42
17 CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces11
18 InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces11
19 OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces1
20 Payment.Application.Commands21
21 Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces21
22 ProductService.Application.Commands11
23 ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces111
24 Shared.Repository2
25 WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces1
26 Auth.Application.Helpers231
27 Auth.Infrastructure.Services324
28 CartService.Application.Handlers2442
29 CartService.Infrastructure.Repositories111111
30 InventoryService.Application.Handlers242
31 InventoryService.Infrastructure.Repositories1111
32 OrderService.Application.Handlers42
33 OrderService.Infrastructure.Repositories1111
34 Payment.Application.Handlers1422
35 Payment.Infrastructure.Repositories221
36 ProductService.Application.Handlers2422
37 ProductService.Infrastructure.Repositories111111
38 WishlistService.Application.Handlers2
39 WishlistService.Infrastructure.Repositories111
40 Auth.Application.Handlers31613231
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 Auth.Domain.Entities2 Auth.Domain.Responses3 CartService.Domain.Dtos4 InventoryService.Domain.Dtos5 InventoryService.Domain.Entities6 Payment.Domain.Entities7 ProductService.Domain.Dtos8 ProductService.Domain.Entities9 Shared10 Shared.Bases11 Shared.Interfaces12 Shared.RedisCache13 Auth.Application.Commands14 Auth.Application.Queries15 Auth.Infrastructure.Interfaces16 CartService.Application.Commands17 CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces18 InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces19 OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces20 Payment.Application.Commands21 Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces22 ProductService.Application.Commands23 ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces24 Shared.Repository25 WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces26 Auth.Application.Helpers27 Auth.Infrastructure.Services28 CartService.Application.Handlers29 CartService.Infrastructure.Repositories30 InventoryService.Application.Handlers31 InventoryService.Infrastructure.Repositories32 OrderService.Application.Handlers33 OrderService.Infrastructure.Repositories34 Payment.Application.Handlers35 Payment.Infrastructure.Repositories36 ProductService.Application.Handlers37 ProductService.Infrastructure.Repositories38 WishlistService.Application.Handlers39 WishlistService.Infrastructure.Repositories40 Auth.Application.HandlersAuth.Domain.Entities1Auth.Domain.Responses2CartService.Domain.Dtos3InventoryService.Domain.Dtos4InventoryService.Domain.Entities5Payment.Domain.Entities6ProductService.Domain.Dtos7ProductService.Domain.Entities8Shared9Shared.Bases10Shared.Interfaces11Shared.RedisCache12Auth.Application.Commands13Auth.Application.Queries14Auth.Infrastructure.Interfaces15CartService.Application.Commands16CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces17InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces18OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces19Payment.Application.Commands20Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces21ProductService.Application.Commands22ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces23Shared.Repository24WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces25Auth.Application.Helpers26Auth.Infrastructure.Services27CartService.Application.Handlers28CartService.Infrastructure.Repositories29InventoryService.Application.Handlers30InventoryService.Infrastructure.Repositories31OrderService.Application.Handlers32OrderService.Infrastructure.Repositories33Payment.Application.Handlers34Payment.Infrastructure.Repositories35ProductService.Application.Handlers36ProductService.Infrastructure.Repositories37WishlistService.Application.Handlers38WishlistService.Infrastructure.Repositories39Auth.Application.Handlers4013111124211111212111111212313242442111111242111142111114222212422111111211131613231+82 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 74% · Strong ·

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 7.1 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 7.7 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 7.4
The Bad
X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 5.5

At a glance — Architecture · 77% · Strong ·

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 8.9 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D23 · .NET / C# Boundary Type-Coupling 9.5 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 9.8 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Bad
AX10 · Repo Code composition 5.9
The Ugly
AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 4.7

At a glance — Maturity · 49% · Weak · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 7.4 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 8.3 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.0
The Bad
M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 6.0
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 26% · Weak · gated by P1, P3, P5 ·

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 8.2 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0
The Bad
P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0
The Ugly
P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P2 · Repo Observability 4.1 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0

At a glance — Security · 51% · Adequate · gated by D29, C1 ·

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 8.0 D32 · .NET / C# Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) 9.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0
The Bad
S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 5.5
The Ugly
D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 0.7 C1 · Repo Data Protection 3.0 C5 · Repo Data-Subject Rights 4.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 3.5

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 87% · Strong ·

The Good
DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 10.0 DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 10.0 DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 10.0 DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 8.0 DM7 · Repo Repository granularity 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 10.0
The Bad
DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 6.8

At a glance — Event-Driven · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good
ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2025 — Injection52Medium
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration26Medium
A01:2025 — Broken Access Control1Medium

Roadmap

Establish a CI/CD pipeline to automatically build, test, and run security scans on every push, ensuring security regressions fail the build immediately. Codify disaster recovery by documenting RTO/RPO and implementing geo-recovery in infrastructure as code, rather than relying solely on persistence guards. Finally, resolve the 31 orphaned files in the codebase and create an Architecture Decision Record to improve knowledge freshness and architectural transparency.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+3.6 ptsLowADR Quality
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+5.2 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.+5.2 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.+5.2 ptsMediumDR & Backup
Resolve the 31 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with REDACTED, CartRepository.cs, OrderCommandHandler.cs.+4.4 ptsMediumKnowledge Freshness
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.+2.6 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Resolve the 51 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (12), REDACTED (9), REDACTED (7).+2.5 ptsMediumStatic Analysis (SAST)
Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.+2.4 ptsMediumObservability

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 63 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 46% mixed · 54% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED4.0MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Handlers/ProductCommandHandler.cs5.8MixedExplicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderCommandHandler.cs5.8MixedExplicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED5.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED5.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED6.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED6.2MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.2MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.2MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.2MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.2MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.2MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.2MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.2MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: Dead code: DeleteRangeAsync
src/CartService/CartService.Application/CartService.Application.csproj7.0MixedCoupling: Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure
src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/OrderService.Application.csproj7.0MixedCoupling: Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 24

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 191

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 140

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 8

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 84 of 89 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 89 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D13D14D15D17D19D20D21D23D24D26D28D29D31D32D34D35D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9C1C2C5DM1DM11DM12DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8DM9ED1ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P7P8PF3S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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, 335 of 355 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
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ 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 · 3.2.533✓ 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 01a1613e-73cf-7028-ae92-49a22b23d162.

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.

  • D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry). This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed; in the meantime, no coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us — add a collector to your test run and commit (or publish into the working tree) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output, and real coverage will be read. You can widen what we reach: optional: add a coverage collector to your test run and commit (or publish into the working tree) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output, and the real number is read on the next scan.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. No dependency manifest this pass reads for hygiene (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems)) was found in this repository, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D30 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
  • D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 56 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
  • D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, … (+1 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via DockerCompose (REDACTED). compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — rabbitmq Pulling rabbitmq Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: rabbitmq Pulling rabbitmq Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 19 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 59.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 97 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 137.

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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so 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.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
  • 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.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — absence of evidence here means the scan found no in-repo trace, not that the control does not exist.
  • DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 8 serious findings✓ 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

8 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2src/CartService/CartService.Application/BackgroundServices/StockEventConsumer.cs:29
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs:10
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3)src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs:10
Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2)src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Repositories/CartRepository.cs:108
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3)src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistCommandHandler.cs:91

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with StockEventConsumer.cs, CartRepository.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication 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: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D5 · Coupling8.9 / 10Adequategated by 10 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure · ×10src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Auth.Application.csproj:12
Off the main sequence: InventoryService.Domain · ×5src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Domain/InventoryService.Domain.csproj:1
Off the main sequence: Sharedsrc/SharedService/Shared/Shared.csproj:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Layer violation finding(s) in Coupling — start with CartService.Application.csproj (2), OrderService.Application.csproj (2), ProductService.Application.csproj (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling — start with InventoryService.Domain.csproj, ProductService.Domain.csproj, CartService.Domain.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  3. 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)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 31 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

86 test methods: 86 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 86 tests.

Mock framework: Moq

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.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 294 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 33 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 217 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt7.1 / 10Adequategated by 3 critical findings✓ 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 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

17 deducted debt markers + 23 dead symbols across 6469 LoC in the .NET projects (1.4/KLoC) → score 7.1.

WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×3src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryQueryHandler.cs:17
Dead code: Deleted · ×23src/SharedService/Shared/Bases/ResponseHandler.cs:16
CommentedOutCode · ×8REDACTED:98
Whole file has no live code — 2 debt markers inside it · ×3src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with InventoryQueryHandler.cs, ProductCommandHandler.cs, OrderCommandHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 23 Dead code finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with IGenericRepository.cs (10), Class1.cs (2), ResponseHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 8 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with WishlistCommandValidator.cs (2), REDACTED, ProductCommandHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ 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 Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The root README is a strong architecture overview for an e-commerce microservices project covering the system's purpose, technologies used (DOTNET 8, C#, EF Core, Ocelot API Gateway, RabbitMQ, Redis, Docker, SQL Server, xUnit, Fluent Assertions), and Clean Architecture layers with features such as CQRS, Mediator Pattern, AutoMapper, Fluent Validation, Serilog logging, DI/SOLID principles, Generic Repository, and Fluent API. It also begins outlining the microservices (Auth, Product, Order, Inventory, Cart, Payment, Wishlist) and ends in a clip marker before detailing installation, usage, contribution, or licence.

XML-doc coverage: Shared · ×29src/SharedService/Shared/Shared.csproj

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The root README is a strong architecture overview for an e-commerce microservices project covering the system's purpose, technologies used (DOTNET 8, C#, EF Core, Ocelot API Gateway, RabbitMQ, Redis, Docker, SQL Server, xUnit, Fluent Assertions), and Clean Architecture layers with features such as CQRS, Mediator Pattern, AutoMapper, Fluent Validation, Serilog logging, DI/SOLID principles, Generic Repository, and Fluent API. It also begins outlining the microservices (Auth, Product, Order, Inventory, Cart, Payment, Wishlist) and ends in a clip marker before detailing installation, usage, contribution, or licence.

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

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.0 / 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 ConsistencyStrong◐ 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.

Inconsistent casing and naming conventions for migration classes and methods. 'WishList' uses PascalCase with an internal capital, while 'wishlistInt', 'order_init', 'auth_init', and 'paymentinit' use lowercase or mixed casing with underscores. Additionally, 'wishlistInt' appears to be a truncated or non-standard name compared to the full descriptive names of other migration classes.
Spelling error in 'GetAppointmentConfirmationEamil' (missing 'g' in 'Email'). While 'UpdateWishlist' is correctly spelled, the presence of the typo in the email service method indicates a lack of consistency in spelling accuracy across the codebase.
Inconsistent naming for validation/existence checks. 'ValidateProductExistence' uses 'Existence' while 'ValidateOrderExists' and 'ValidateProductExists' use 'Exists'. Additionally, 'CartExpirationBackgroundService' is a noun phrase describing the service, while 'ValidateOrderExists' is a verb phrase describing an action, but they are both validators/validators-like entities. More critically, 'ValidateProductExistence' vs 'ValidateProductExists' is a direct inconsistency for the same concept (checking if a product exists).

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent casing and naming conventions for migration classes and… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Spelling error in 'GetAppointmentConfirmationEamil' (missing 'g' in… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for validation/existence checks.… 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.

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling9.5 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.

Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.

Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.

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

2 domain type(s) cross context boundaries across 9 contexts.

Cross-context type LowStockDto (InventoryService → ProductService) · ×2src/ProductService/ProductService.Infrastructure/Interfaces/IProductRepository.cs:10

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Cross-context type LowStockDto (InventoryService → ProductService) finding(s) in Boundary Type-Coupling — start with IProductRepository.cs, ProductRepository.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Boundary Type-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 Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d23_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment ValueStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

32 valuable / 0 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

misleading commentsrc/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:11

What to do

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

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

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 37 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_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: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

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)0.7 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

52 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 52 medium, 0 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 6 file(s) — `REDACTED` (line 19, line 22, line 23, …), `REDACTED` (lines 11–12, line 65), `REDACTED` (lines 10–11, line 60), `REDACTED` (lines 10–11, line 46), `REDACTED` (lines 12–13, line 76), … (+1 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 6 of those file(s) — `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, … (+1 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 6 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 51 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (12), REDACTED (9), REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (51 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

26 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 18 medium, 8 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 18 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (16), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 8 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (8). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 recommendation-level).

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

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)9.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.

Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR LEAK scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset: personal data crossing a boundary it should not — reaching a log/console sink, a URL or query string, or unprotected browser storage. Matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. A clean sweep is unscored rather than an unearned 10, and is a statement about the leak paths checked only — this dimension does not inventory the personal data a repository holds (the personal-data map and the C1-C5 compliance cards do that), so it never reports that a repository has no personal-data surface. Reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive over the leak paths, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 1 medium, 0 low. semgrep could not parse 6 file(s) — `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, `REDACTED`, … (+1 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

31 of 31 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is REDACTED. Counted over 31 of the 235 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×31REDACTED:1
Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 31 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with REDACTED, CartRepository.cs, OrderCommandHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (31 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 37 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.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 composition5.9 / 10Adequate✓ 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. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
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 direction4.7 / 10Weak✓ 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.

  • `WishlistService.Application` is a Application project but references `WishlistService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/WishlistService.Application.csproj:10
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `WishlistService.Infrastructure`: it names `WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IWishlistRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 21, 27. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistCommandHandler.cs:9
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `WishlistService.Infrastructure`: it names `WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IWishlistRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 15, 19. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistQueryHandler.cs:6
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `WishlistService.Infrastructure`: it names `WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IWishlistRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 8, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Validators/ValidateWishlistExists.cs:2
  • `ProductService.Application` is a Application project but references `InventoryService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/ProductService.Application.csproj:10
  • `ProductService.Application` is a Application project but references `ProductService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/ProductService.Application.csproj:13
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `ProductService.Infrastructure`: it names `ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IProductRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 19, 26. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Handlers/ProductCommandHandler.cs:7
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `ProductService.Infrastructure`: it names `ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IProductRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 19, 24. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Handlers/ProductQueryHandler.cs:6
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `ProductService.Infrastructure`: it names `ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IProductRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 9, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Validators/ValidateProductExists.cs:1
  • `Payment.Application` is a Application project but references `Payment.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Payment.Application.csproj:13
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Payment.Infrastructure`: it names `Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IPaymentRepository`, `IPaymentProcessor`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 40, 41. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/BackgroundServices/OrderCreatedEventConsumer.cs:6
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Payment.Infrastructure`: it names `Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IPaymentRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on line 37. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/BackgroundServices/PaymentProcessedEventConsumer.cs:4
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Payment.Infrastructure`: it names `Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IPaymentRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 14, 19. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. (×2) — src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Handlers/PaymentCommandHandler.cs:5, src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Handlers/PaymentQueryHandler.cs:5
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Payment.Infrastructure`: it names `Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IPaymentRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 9, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Validators/ValidatePaymentExists.cs:1
  • `OrderService.Application` is a Application project but references `Payment.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/OrderService.Application.csproj:13
  • `OrderService.Application` is a Application project but references `OrderService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/OrderService.Application.csproj:15
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `OrderService.Infrastructure`: it names `OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IOrderRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 25, 34. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderCommandHandler.cs:11
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `OrderService.Infrastructure`: it names `OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IOrderRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 14, 19. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderQueryHandler.cs:5
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `OrderService.Infrastructure`: it names `OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IOrderRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 9, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Validators/ValidateOrderExists.cs:1
  • `InventoryService.Application` is a Application project but references `InventoryService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/InventoryService.Application.csproj:12
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `InventoryService.Infrastructure`: it names `InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IInventoryRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on line 40. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/BackgroundServices/ProductCreatedEventConsumer.cs:2
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `InventoryService.Infrastructure`: it names `InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IInventoryRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 15, 18. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryCommandHandler.cs:3
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `InventoryService.Infrastructure`: it names `InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IInventoryRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 15, 21. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryQueryHandler.cs:4
  • `CartService.Application` is a Application project but references `InventoryService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/CartService/CartService.Application/CartService.Application.csproj:10
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `InventoryService.Infrastructure`: it names `InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IInventoryRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on line 33. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/CartService/CartService.Application/BackgroundServices/StockEventConsumer.cs:2
  • `CartService.Application` is a Application project but references `CartService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/CartService/CartService.Application/CartService.Application.csproj:13
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `CartService.Infrastructure`: it names `CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `ICartRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 18, 25. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/CartService/CartService.Application/Handlers/CartCommandHandler.cs:5
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `CartService.Infrastructure`: it names `CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `ICartRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 15, 21. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/CartService/CartService.Application/Handlers/CartQueryHandler.cs:4
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `CartService.Infrastructure`: it names `CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `ICartRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 9, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/CartService/CartService.Application/Validators/ValidateCartExists.cs:1
  • `Auth.Application` is a Application project but references `Auth.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one. — src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Auth.Application.csproj:12
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Auth.Infrastructure`: it names `Auth.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IJwtService`, `IGoogleService`, `IEmailService`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 30, 31, 32, 34, 35. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — REDACTED:5
  • This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Auth.Infrastructure`: it names `Auth.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IEmailService`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 13, 17. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one. — src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Helpers/UserRegistrationHelper.cs:3

What to do

  • Keep dependencies pointing inward: domain/application define interfaces, infrastructure/web implement them (Dependency Inversion).
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.

AX6 · Interface segregation9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

  • `IGenericRepository<T>` declares 21 members: `GetAllAsync`, `GetByAsync`, `DeleteRangeAsync`, `GetByIdAsync`, `GetByIdStringAsync`, `ExistsAsync`, `GetByNameAsync`, `SaveChangesAsync`, `BeginTransaction`, `Commit`, `RollBack`, `GetTableNoTracking`, `GetTableAsTracking`, `AddAsync`, `AddRangeAsync`, `UpdateAsync`, `UpdateRangeAsync`, `DeleteAsync`, `DeleteByIdAsync`, `DeleteByIdStringAsync`, `Exsitance`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:6

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

C1 · Data Protection3.0 / 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.

  • No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.

What to do

  • Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

C5 · Data-Subject Rights4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether GDPR data-subject requests are supported in code — erasure, export/portability, consent.

Method: Roslyn scan: GDPR data-subject-rights corroboration (erasure/export/consent vocabulary co-occurring with subject-id store crossing or explicit GDPR pattern). Deterministic, gated by PII.

  • Corroborated rights: erasure ✓ · export ✗ · consent ✗. Each tick means this scan found code in the repository implementing that right — a deletion/anonymisation path for erasure, a data-export or portability path for export, and consent state recorded alongside the personal data it authorises. A ✗ therefore means no such code was recognised HERE, not that the right is unsupported: a capability provided by a platform, a manual runbook, or code spelled in a way this scan does not match is not visible to it. Confirm before treating a cross as a gap; where it is one, the right has to be fulfilled manually.

What to do

  • Implement data export/portability for a data subject (a machine-readable export of their personal data).
  • Track GDPR consent (lawful basis) alongside the personal data it authorises.
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

DM11 · Constructible invalid state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.

Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain types receive the time and randomness their rules depend on, rather than reading the process clock or a global random source directly — an ambient read makes the rule it feeds untestable at the instant that matters and lets two reads inside one operation disagree.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated, C#/VB only): domain-layer types scanned for ambient reads — DateTime/DateTimeOffset.Now/UtcNow/Today, Random.Shared, new Random(), Stopwatch.GetTimestamp — resolved against the semantic model, with a comment/string-stripped token fallback only where resolution fails. Body reads are scored; field/property initialisers are surfaced unscored. Apply/When folds excluded (ES1 owns them). Deterministic, symbol-resolved.

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

DM5 · Encapsulated state8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state — private/init-only setters, and collections handed out as read-only views rather than the mutable backing collection — instead of exposing writable state that bypasses invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

  • `Payment` exposes publicly writable state (Id, OrderId, Amount, PaymentMethod, Status, CreatedAt). — src/PaymentService/Payment.Domain/Entities/Payment.cs:3
  • `Order` exposes publicly writable state (CustomerId, Status). — src/OrderService/OrderService.Domain/Entities/Order.cs:5

What to do

  • Make entity setters private/init-only and hand collections out as IReadOnlyList/IReadOnlyCollection over a private backing field; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

  • The domain project `Auth.Domain` references `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore` — a persistence dependency; the domain should own a port and let an infrastructure project reference it. — src/AuthService/Auth.Domain/Auth.Domain.csproj:10

What to do

  • Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).
DM7 · Repository granularity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether repositories are per aggregate root (not per child entity) and keep the persistence query handle behind the contract, so the root's invariants can't be bypassed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): repository abstraction detection; repositories over non-aggregate-root entities flagged, and (C#/VB) repository INTERFACES whose members return a live persistence query handle (IQueryable/DbSet/IMongoQueryable) — implementations and specification evaluators are out of population by design, since composing a query internally is what an implementation is for. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: repositories + aggregate roots by NAME convention; per-root repository rule checked within the set.

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether one domain rule is decided — or one measurement produced — in more than one place, rather than living on the type that owns it.

Method: Neutral body surface plus Roslyn (DDD-gated), two arms. DECISION (Roslyn only): a predicate over a domain type's members judged in two or more types, where none of those decisions live on the owning type — operands of comparisons and relational property patterns only, so a member merely passed as an argument is not judged. DERIVATION: a plain all-numeric carrier of ≥2 members, with no base type and exactly one constructor, CONSTRUCTED as the result of a method (returned or assigned, never inline as an argument) in two or more types other than its own — the same measurement produced twice, which centralising the judgement does not fix. DERIVATION runs on every language whose frontend declares the produced-or-passed fact per construction (Roslyn and the Java sidecar today); a target with only the derivation arm carries an engine gap naming the decision arm as not assessed, and a frontend that declares nothing keeps the dimension not measured rather than clean. Single-member rules, test code and generated code are out of population for both. Advisory.

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

ED5 · Idempotency8.2 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

  • `Handlers.OrderCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderCommandHandler.cs:110

What to do

  • Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×40) — src/ApiGateWay/ApiGateWay.Api/Program.cs:13, REDACTED:98, REDACTED:100, …

What to do

  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)8.0 / 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 README to the 37 of 37 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 — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

  • Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
M3 · Folder & project 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.

  • Tests aren't grouped in a dedicated test folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
  • Only 5/37 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

  • 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.
  • Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
M4 · Documentation accuracy8.0 / 10Strong◐ 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.

  • README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests — searched for: `microservice`, `service-mesh`, `istio`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:1

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.
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 · Observability4.1 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 1/23 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 23, 8 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
  • 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, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

  • Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add 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.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

  • Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.
  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

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; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

S1 · Web-Security Posture5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

  • `RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path. — src/SharedService/Shared/AuthShared/JwtAuthenticationExtensions.cs:18
  • `ValidateLifetime = false` means expired tokens keep working indefinitely, so a leaked or revoked token never stops being valid. — REDACTED:212
  • None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves. (×8) — src/ApiGateWay/ApiGateWay.Api/Program.cs:6, src/AuthService/Auth.Api/Program.cs:8, src/CartService/CartService.Api/Program.cs:7, …
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.) — src/AuthService/Auth.Infrastructure/AuthInfrastructureDependencyInjection.cs:60

What to do

  • Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
  • Re-enable token validation — `ValidateLifetime` is set to `false`. If it was switched off because the expected value was wrong or absent, supply that value instead (`ValidAudiences`/`ValidIssuers`, or `IssuerSigningKeys`/`IssuerSigningKeyResolver` for the signature) rather than skipping the check: a disabled check accepts every token, not just the one that was failing.
  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy first, then Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options and a frame policy) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness7.7 / 10Strong✓ 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.

  • Reading `.Result` of a task that has not completed blocks this thread until it does — the same block as `.Wait()`: under a synchronization context (Blazor, a UI thread, classic ASP.NET) it deadlocks, and on the thread pool it parks a thread for as long as the work runs. `await` the task instead (make the caller `async`); where a synchronous entry point must stay, keep the block in ONE documented bridge with a timeout. (×2) — REDACTED:76, REDACTED:77

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result`
X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X2 · Cancellation propagation5.5 / 10Adequate✓ 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. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 63/179 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. (×39) — src/SharedService/Shared/RedisCache/CacheService.cs:16, src/SharedService/Shared/RedisCache/CacheService.cs:22, src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:20, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

  • `message.Body` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the text of an element through an HTML e-mail body with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. Encode it for HTML at this site, render it through the framework's escaping output, or sanitise it if it must stay markup. — src/AuthService/Auth.Infrastructure/Services/EmailService.cs:39

What to do

  • Each finding names the expression, the attribute it lands in and the line. Confirm the value's origin from the read this analyzer traced, then escape it at the sink or validate it against the shape the attribute accepts before interpolating.
X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

X5 · Nullable reference types7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • ~3.3 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 147 suppression(s) across the 44471 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

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 Health74%StrongSolid.
Architecture77%StrongSolid.
Maturity49%Weak — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness26%Weak — gated by P1, P3, P5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security51%Adequate — gated by D29, C1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling87%StrongSolid.
Event-Driven100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Performance100%ExemplarySolid.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 3 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

  • C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
  • 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.
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
Not included — 41 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.
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — rabbitmq Pulling rabbitmq Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: rabbitmq Pulling rabbitmq Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no supported dependency manifest was read
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
  • D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); 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.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
  • 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.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
  • DM10 One transaction, one aggregate — no repository writes detected — no operation to judge against the one-aggregate rule
  • DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
  • ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
  • ED3 Event naming — no domain or integration events detected — event-naming check not applicable
  • ED4 Outbox / dual-write — no persistence writes or publishes observed in handlers — atomicity not assessable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • 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) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — 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.
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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.

Critical — 24 finding(s)
AX4 · Dependency direction · Dependency-rule violation · ×10
  • Dependency-rule violation: WishlistService.Application (Application) → WishlistService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/WishlistService.Application.csproj:10 — `WishlistService.Application` is a Application project but references `WishlistService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: ProductService.Application (Application) → InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/ProductService.Application.csproj:10 — `ProductService.Application` is a Application project but references `InventoryService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: ProductService.Application (Application) → ProductService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/ProductService.Application.csproj:13 — `ProductService.Application` is a Application project but references `ProductService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: Payment.Application (Application) → Payment.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Payment.Application.csproj:13 — `Payment.Application` is a Application project but references `Payment.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: OrderService.Application (Application) → Payment.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/OrderService.Application.csproj:13 — `OrderService.Application` is a Application project but references `Payment.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: OrderService.Application (Application) → OrderService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/OrderService.Application.csproj:15 — `OrderService.Application` is a Application project but references `OrderService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: InventoryService.Application (Application) → InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/InventoryService.Application.csproj:12 — `InventoryService.Application` is a Application project but references `InventoryService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: CartService.Application (Application) → InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/CartService/CartService.Application/CartService.Application.csproj:10 — `CartService.Application` is a Application project but references `InventoryService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: CartService.Application (Application) → CartService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/CartService/CartService.Application/CartService.Application.csproj:13 — `CartService.Application` is a Application project but references `CartService.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: Auth.Application (Application) → Auth.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Auth.Application.csproj:12 — `Auth.Application` is a Application project but references `Auth.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
D5 · Coupling · Layer violation · ×10
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Auth.Application.csproj:12 — Auth.Application (Application) references Auth.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/CartService/CartService.Application/CartService.Application.csproj:13 — CartService.Application (Application) references CartService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/CartService/CartService.Application/CartService.Application.csproj:10 — CartService.Application (Application) references InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/InventoryService.Application.csproj:12 — InventoryService.Application (Application) references InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/OrderService.Application.csproj:15 — OrderService.Application (Application) references OrderService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/OrderService.Application.csproj:13 — OrderService.Application (Application) references Payment.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Payment.Application.csproj:13 — Payment.Application (Application) references Payment.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/ProductService.Application.csproj:10 — ProductService.Application (Application) references InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/ProductService.Application.csproj:13 — ProductService.Application (Application) references ProductService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
  • Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/WishlistService.Application.csproj:10 — WishlistService.Application (Application) references WishlistService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
D17 · Explicit Debt · WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×3
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryQueryHandler.cs:17 — private IHttpContextAccessor _httpContextAccessor — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Handlers/ProductCommandHandler.cs:23 — private IHttpContextAccessor _httpContextAccessor — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderCommandHandler.cs:32 — private HttpClient _httpClientPayment — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary · Domain depends on infrastructure · ×1
  • Domain depends on infrastructure: Auth.Domain src/AuthService/Auth.Domain/Auth.Domain.csproj:10 — The domain project `Auth.Domain` references `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore` — a persistence dependency; the domain should own a port and let an infrastructure project reference it.
Serious — 191 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • + 26 more in this group — see findings.md.
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×39
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetAsync src/SharedService/Shared/RedisCache/CacheService.cs:16 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: SetAsync src/SharedService/Shared/RedisCache/CacheService.cs:22 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetByAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:20 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetByIdAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:25 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetByIdStringAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetByNameAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:35 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: AddRangeAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:45 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: AddAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:51 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:58 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:66 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteByIdAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:72 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteRangeAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:97 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: SaveChangesAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:103 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateRangeAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:128 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetAllAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:134 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ExistsAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:144 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ValidateEntityExistsAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/ValidationService.cs:7 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ToPaginatedListAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Wrapper/QueryableExtensions.cs:7 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetAllAsync src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Repositories/WishlistRepository.cs:21 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetByUserIdAsync src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Repositories/WishlistRepository.cs:48 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: AddAsync src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Repositories/WishlistRepository.cs:62 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateAsync src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Repositories/WishlistRepository.cs:72 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteByUserIdAsync src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Repositories/WishlistRepository.cs:105 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: AddItemAsync src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Repositories/WishlistRepository.cs:119 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: RemoveItemAsync src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Repositories/WishlistRepository.cs:140 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • + 14 more in this group — see findings.md.
AX4 · Dependency direction · Dependency-rule violation · ×23
  • Dependency-rule violation: WishlistService.Application (Application) → WishlistService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistCommandHandler.cs:9 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `WishlistService.Infrastructure`: it names `WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IWishlistRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 21, 27. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: WishlistService.Application (Application) → WishlistService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistQueryHandler.cs:6 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `WishlistService.Infrastructure`: it names `WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IWishlistRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 15, 19. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: WishlistService.Application (Application) → WishlistService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Validators/ValidateWishlistExists.cs:2 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `WishlistService.Infrastructure`: it names `WishlistService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IWishlistRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 8, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: ProductService.Application (Application) → ProductService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Handlers/ProductCommandHandler.cs:7 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `ProductService.Infrastructure`: it names `ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IProductRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 19, 26. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: ProductService.Application (Application) → ProductService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Handlers/ProductQueryHandler.cs:6 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `ProductService.Infrastructure`: it names `ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IProductRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 19, 24. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: ProductService.Application (Application) → ProductService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Validators/ValidateProductExists.cs:1 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `ProductService.Infrastructure`: it names `ProductService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IProductRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 9, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: Payment.Application (Application) → Payment.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/BackgroundServices/OrderCreatedEventConsumer.cs:6 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Payment.Infrastructure`: it names `Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IPaymentRepository`, `IPaymentProcessor`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 40, 41. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: Payment.Application (Application) → Payment.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/BackgroundServices/PaymentProcessedEventConsumer.cs:4 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Payment.Infrastructure`: it names `Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IPaymentRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on line 37. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: Payment.Application (Application) → Payment.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Handlers/PaymentCommandHandler.cs:5 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Payment.Infrastructure`: it names `Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IPaymentRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 14, 19. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: Payment.Application (Application) → Payment.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Handlers/PaymentQueryHandler.cs:5 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Payment.Infrastructure`: it names `Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IPaymentRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 14, 19. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: Payment.Application (Application) → Payment.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Validators/ValidatePaymentExists.cs:1 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Payment.Infrastructure`: it names `Payment.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IPaymentRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 9, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: OrderService.Application (Application) → OrderService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderCommandHandler.cs:11 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `OrderService.Infrastructure`: it names `OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IOrderRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 25, 34. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: OrderService.Application (Application) → OrderService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderQueryHandler.cs:5 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `OrderService.Infrastructure`: it names `OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IOrderRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 14, 19. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: OrderService.Application (Application) → OrderService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Validators/ValidateOrderExists.cs:1 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `OrderService.Infrastructure`: it names `OrderService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IOrderRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 9, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: InventoryService.Application (Application) → InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/BackgroundServices/ProductCreatedEventConsumer.cs:2 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `InventoryService.Infrastructure`: it names `InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IInventoryRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on line 40. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: InventoryService.Application (Application) → InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryCommandHandler.cs:3 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `InventoryService.Infrastructure`: it names `InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IInventoryRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 15, 18. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: InventoryService.Application (Application) → InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryQueryHandler.cs:4 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `InventoryService.Infrastructure`: it names `InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IInventoryRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 15, 21. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: CartService.Application (Application) → InventoryService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/CartService/CartService.Application/BackgroundServices/StockEventConsumer.cs:2 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `InventoryService.Infrastructure`: it names `InventoryService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IInventoryRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on line 33. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: CartService.Application (Application) → CartService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/CartService/CartService.Application/Handlers/CartCommandHandler.cs:5 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `CartService.Infrastructure`: it names `CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `ICartRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 18, 25. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: CartService.Application (Application) → CartService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/CartService/CartService.Application/Handlers/CartQueryHandler.cs:4 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `CartService.Infrastructure`: it names `CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `ICartRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 15, 21. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: CartService.Application (Application) → CartService.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/CartService/CartService.Application/Validators/ValidateCartExists.cs:1 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `CartService.Infrastructure`: it names `CartService.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `ICartRepository`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 9, 11. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: Auth.Application (Application) → Auth.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) REDACTED:5 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Auth.Infrastructure`: it names `Auth.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IJwtService`, `IGoogleService`, `IEmailService`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 30, 31, 32, 34, 35. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
  • Dependency-rule violation: Auth.Application (Application) → Auth.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Helpers/UserRegistrationHelper.cs:3 — This Application file depends on the Infrastructure project `Auth.Infrastructure`: it names `Auth.Infrastructure.Interfaces`, `IEmailService`. The inward dependency rule is broken here. It is named again on lines 13, 17. Depend on an abstraction the inner layer owns, implemented in the outer one.
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×23
  • Dead code: Deleted src/SharedService/Shared/Bases/ResponseHandler.cs:16 — Method Deleted — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: DeleteRangeAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:10 — Method DeleteRangeAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: ExistsAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:13 — Method ExistsAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: GetByNameAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:14 — Method GetByNameAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: Commit src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:17 — Method Commit — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: RollBack src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:18 — Method RollBack — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: GetTableNoTracking src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:19 — Method GetTableNoTracking — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: GetTableAsTracking src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:20 — Method GetTableAsTracking — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: UpdateRangeAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:24 — Method UpdateRangeAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: DeleteByIdStringAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:27 — Method DeleteByIdStringAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: Exsitance src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:28 — Method Exsitance — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: InvokeAsync src/SharedService/Shared/Middleware/ListenToOnlyApiGetWay.cs:17 — Method InvokeAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: Class1 src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Domain/Class1.cs:3 — NamedType Class1 — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including InventoryService.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: InventoryItemDto src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Domain/Dtos/InventoryItemDto.cs:3 — NamedType InventoryItemDto — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including InventoryService.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: Deactivate src/ProductService/ProductService.Domain/Entities/Product.cs:30 — Method Deactivate — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including ProductService.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: CartExpirationBackgroundService src/CartService/CartService.Application/BackgroundServices/CartExpirationBackgroundService.cs:3 — NamedType CartExpirationBackgroundService — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including CartService.Application, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: CartExpiredEvent src/CartService/CartService.Application/Events/CartExpiredEvent.cs:5 — NamedType CartExpiredEvent — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including CartService.Application, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: Class1 src/PaymentService/Payment.Domain/Class1.cs:3 — NamedType Class1 — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Payment.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: PaymentPerOrder src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Commands/PaymentRequest.cs:3 — NamedType PaymentPerOrder — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including OrderService.Application, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: ValidatePaymentExistsAsync src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Validators/IValidatePaymentExists.cs:5 — Method ValidatePaymentExistsAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Payment.Application, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: RoleResponse src/AuthService/Auth.Domain/Responses/RoleResponse.cs:3 — NamedType RoleResponse — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Auth.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: UserClaims src/AuthService/Auth.Domain/Responses/UserClaims.cs:3 — NamedType UserClaims — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Auth.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
  • Dead code: UserRoles src/AuthService/Auth.Domain/Responses/UserRoles.cs:3 — NamedType UserRoles — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Auth.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×18
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×8
  • CommentedOutCode REDACTED:98 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Handlers/ProductCommandHandler.cs:42 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/SharedService/Shared/SharedDependencyInjection.cs:18 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/AuthService/Auth.Infrastructure/AuthInfrastructureDependencyInjection.cs:97 — 12 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderCommandHandler.cs:142 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/SharedService/Shared/Messaging/RabbitMQProducer.cs:17 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Validators/WishlistCommandValidator.cs:26 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Validators/WishlistCommandValidator.cs:31 — 8 consecutive commented-code lines
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×5
  • Off the main sequence: InventoryService.Domain src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Domain/InventoryService.Domain.csproj:1 — InventoryService.Domain: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: ProductService.Domain src/ProductService/ProductService.Domain/ProductService.Domain.csproj:1 — ProductService.Domain: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: CartService.Domain src/CartService/CartService.Domain/CartService.Domain.csproj:1 — CartService.Domain: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Payment.Domain src/PaymentService/Payment.Domain/Payment.Domain.csproj:1 — Payment.Domain: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 2 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Auth.Domain src/AuthService/Auth.Domain/Auth.Domain.csproj:1 — Auth.Domain: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 2 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
D17 · Explicit Debt · Whole file has no live code · ×3
  • Whole file has no live code — 2 debt markers inside it src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:1 — Every line in this file is a comment or blank — it declares no type, member, using or attribute, so nothing in it reaches the build. Its 2 debt markers (2 CommentedOutCode) all sit inside that dead text: one decision to leave the whole file switched off, not 2 independent debts. It records no note anywhere: the file is switched off with nothing in it saying why, so a reader cannot tell whether it is waiting on something or was simply abandoned — which is the harder of the two to bring back. Decide the FILE rather than its lines — restore it, or delete it and let version control hold the history. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
  • Whole file has no live code — 2 debt markers inside it src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/EventHandlers/OrderCanceledEventHandler.cs:1 — Every line in this file is a comment or blank — it declares no type, member, using or attribute, so nothing in it reaches the build. Its 2 debt markers (2 CommentedOutCode) all sit inside that dead text: one decision to leave the whole file switched off, not 2 independent debts. It records no note anywhere: the file is switched off with nothing in it saying why, so a reader cannot tell whether it is waiting on something or was simply abandoned — which is the harder of the two to bring back. Decide the FILE rather than its lines — restore it, or delete it and let version control hold the history. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
  • Whole file has no live code — 2 debt markers inside it src/SharedService/Shared/Messaging/RabbitMQMessageBroker.cs:1 — Every line in this file is a comment or blank — it declares no type, member, using or attribute, so nothing in it reaches the build. Its 2 debt markers (2 CommentedOutCode) all sit inside that dead text: one decision to leave the whole file switched off, not 2 independent debts. It records no note anywhere: the file is switched off with nothing in it saying why, so a reader cannot tell whether it is waiting on something or was simply abandoned — which is the harder of the two to bring back. Decide the FILE rather than its lines — restore it, or delete it and let version control hold the history. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type LowStockDto (InventoryService → ProductService) · ×2
  • Cross-context type LowStockDto (InventoryService → ProductService) src/ProductService/ProductService.Infrastructure/Interfaces/IProductRepository.cs:10 — LowStockDto (context InventoryService) is exposed in ProductService's public surface via IProductRepository.GetLowStockProductsAsync — couples the contexts.
  • Cross-context type LowStockDto (InventoryService → ProductService) src/ProductService/ProductService.Infrastructure/Repositories/ProductRepository.cs:140 — LowStockDto (context InventoryService) is exposed in ProductService's public surface via ProductRepository.GetLowStockProductsAsync — couples the contexts.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/CartService/CartService.Application/BackgroundServices/StockEventConsumer.cs:29 — src/CartService/CartService.Application/BackgroundServices/StockEventConsumer.cs:29-36 | src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/BackgroundServices/ProductCreatedEventConsumer.cs:36-43 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CartService/CartService.Application/BackgroundServices/StockEventConsumer.cs:29` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Repositories/CartRepository.cs:184 — src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Repositories/CartRepository.cs:184-191 | src/OrderService/OrderService.Infrastructure/Repositories/OrderRepository.cs:64-71 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
X1 · Async correctness · Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result` · ×2
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result` REDACTED:76 — Reading `.Result` of a task that has not completed blocks this thread until it does — the same block as `.Wait()`: under a synchronization context (Blazor, a UI thread, classic ASP.NET) it deadlocks, and on the thread pool it parks a thread for as long as the work runs. `await` the task instead (make the caller `async`); where a synchronous entry point must stay, keep the block in ONE documented bridge with a timeout.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result` REDACTED:77 — Reading `.Result` of a task that has not completed blocks this thread until it does — the same block as `.Wait()`: under a synchronization context (Blazor, a UI thread, classic ASP.NET) it deadlocks, and on the thread pool it parks a thread for as long as the work runs. `await` the task instead (make the caller `async`); where a synchronous entry point must stay, keep the block in ONE documented bridge with a timeout.
C1 · Data Protection · No data-protection/encryption · ×1
  • No data-protection/encryption — No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs:10 — src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs:10-24 | src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs:9-23 — before extracting anything, compare `src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs` and `src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 83% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs:10 — src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs:10-21 | src/OrderService/OrderService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs:9-20 | src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs:9-20 — before extracting anything, compare `src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs` and `src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Services/HttpClientServiceExtensions.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 83% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Repositories/CartRepository.cs:108 — src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Repositories/CartRepository.cs:108-120 | src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Repositories/WishlistRepository.cs:74-84 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Repositories/CartRepository.cs:108` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistCommandHandler.cs:91 — src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistCommandHandler.cs:91-99 | src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistCommandHandler.cs:113-121 | src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistCommandHandler.cs:138-146 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistCommandHandler.cs:91` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `request` to `DeleteWishlistByUserIdCommand` in one and `AddItemToWishlistCommand` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryCommandHandler.cs:80 — src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryCommandHandler.cs:80-86 | src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryCommandHandler.cs:97-103 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryCommandHandler.cs:80` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `request` to `UpdateStockCommand` in one and `ReconcileStockCommand` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Repositories/CartRepository.cs:129 — src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Repositories/CartRepository.cs:129-141 | src/OrderService/OrderService.Infrastructure/Repositories/OrderRepository.cs:49-61 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
ED5 · Idempotency · Non-idempotent mutation · ×1
  • Non-idempotent mutation: Handlers.OrderCommandHandler.Handle src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderCommandHandler.cs:110 — `Handlers.OrderCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write.
P1 · CI/CD gates · No CI pipeline · ×1
  • No CI pipeline — No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
P5 · DR & Backup · No DR/backup evidence · ×1
  • No DR/backup evidence — A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · Token validation disabled · ×1
  • Token validation disabled REDACTED:212 — `ValidateLifetime = false` means expired tokens keep working indefinitely, so a leaked or revoked token never stops being valid.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
  • NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped · Untrusted text written into markup unescaped · ×1
  • Untrusted text written into markup unescaped src/AuthService/Auth.Infrastructure/Services/EmailService.cs:39 — `message.Body` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the text of an element through an HTML e-mail body with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. Encode it for HTML at this site, render it through the framework's escaping output, or sanitise it if it must stay markup.
Minor — 109 finding(s)
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×40
  • Commented-out code src/ApiGateWay/ApiGateWay.Api/Program.cs:13 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:98 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:100 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:113 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/AuthService/Auth.Infrastructure/AuthInfrastructureDependencyInjection.cs:101 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/AuthService/Auth.Infrastructure/AuthInfrastructureDependencyInjection.cs:106 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/CartService/CartService.Application/CartApplicationDependencyInjection.cs:26 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/CartService/CartService.Application/Handlers/CartCommandHandler.cs:102 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/CartService/CartService.Application/Handlers/CartCommandHandler.cs:107 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:15 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:16 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:22 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:26 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:27 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:31 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:38 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:40 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:43 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:44 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:48 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:49 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/EventHandlers/ProductCreatedEventHandler.cs:51 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/InventoryApplicationDependencyInjection.cs:25 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/InventoryApplicationDependencyInjection.cs:26 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/ApplicationDependencyInjection.cs:26 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • + 15 more in this group — see findings.md.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×31
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/Repositories/CartRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/Handlers/OrderCommandHandler.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/Handlers/WishlistCommandHandler.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/Repositories/WishlistRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/ProductService/ProductService.Infrastructure/Repositories/ProductRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/CartService/CartService.Application/Handlers/CartCommandHandler.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Handlers/ProductQueryHandler.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/Handlers/InventoryCommandHandler.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/AuthService/Auth.Infrastructure/AuthInfrastructureDependencyInjection.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/OrderService/OrderService.Infrastructure/Repositories/OrderRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/SharedService/Shared/Middleware/ExceptionHandlingMiddleware.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Infrastructure/Repositories/InventoryRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/Handlers/ProductCommandHandler.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Handlers/AppUserHandler.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/BackgroundServices/OrderCreatedEventConsumer.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/CartService/CartService.Application/BackgroundServices/StockEventConsumer.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/PaymentService/Payment.Infrastructure/Repositories/PaymentRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/BackgroundServices/ProductCreatedEventConsumer.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/BackgroundServices/PaymentProcessedEventConsumer.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • + 6 more in this group — see findings.md.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×9
  • No security response headers detected — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No security response headers detected src/ApiGateWay/ApiGateWay.Api/Program.cs:6 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
  • No security response headers detected src/AuthService/Auth.Api/Program.cs:8 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
  • No security response headers detected src/CartService/CartService.Api/Program.cs:7 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
  • No security response headers detected src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Api/Program.cs:4 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
  • No security response headers detected src/OrderService/OrderService.Api/Program.cs:11 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
  • No security response headers detected src/PaymentService/Payment.Api/Program.cs:5 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
  • No security response headers detected src/ProductService/ProductService.Api/Program.cs:9 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
  • No security response headers detected src/WishListService/WishlistService.Api/Program.cs:6 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×8
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
DM5 · Encapsulated state · Mutable entity · ×2
  • Mutable entity: Payment src/PaymentService/Payment.Domain/Entities/Payment.cs:3 — `Payment` exposes publicly writable state (Id, OrderId, Amount, PaymentMethod, Status, CreatedAt).
  • Mutable entity: Order src/OrderService/OrderService.Domain/Entities/Order.cs:5 — `Order` exposes publicly writable state (CustomerId, Status).
AX6 · Interface segregation · Fat interface · ×1
  • Fat interface: IGenericRepository<T> (21 members) src/SharedService/Shared/Interfaces/IGenericRepository.cs:6 — `IGenericRepository<T>` declares 21 members: `GetAllAsync`, `GetByAsync`, `DeleteRangeAsync`, `GetByIdAsync`, `GetByIdStringAsync`, `ExistsAsync`, `GetByNameAsync`, `SaveChangesAsync`, `BeginTransaction`, `Commit`, `RollBack`, `GetTableNoTracking`, `GetTableAsTracking`, `AddAsync`, `AddRangeAsync`, `UpdateAsync`, `UpdateRangeAsync`, `DeleteAsync`, `DeleteByIdAsync`, `DeleteByIdStringAsync`, `Exsitance`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces.
C5 · Data-Subject Rights · Partial data-subject-rights support · ×1
  • Partial data-subject-rights support — Corroborated rights: erasure ✓ · export ✗ · consent ✗. Each tick means this scan found code in the repository implementing that right — a deletion/anonymisation path for erasure, a data-export or portability path for export, and consent state recorded alongside the personal data it authorises. A ✗ therefore means no such code was recognised HERE, not that the right is unsupported: a capability provided by a platform, a manual runbook, or code spelled in a way this scan does not match is not visible to it. Confirm before treating a cross as a gap; where it is one, the right has to be fulfilled manually.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent casing and naming conventions for migration classes and methods. 'WishList' uses PascalCase with an internal capital, while 'wishlistInt', 'order_init', 'auth_init', and 'paymentinit' use lowercase or mixed casing with underscores. Additionally, 'wishlistInt' appears to be a truncated or non-standard name compared to the full descriptive names of other migration classes. · ×1
  • Inconsistent casing and naming conventions for migration classes and methods. 'WishList' uses PascalCase with an internal capital, while 'wishlistInt', 'order_init', 'auth_init', and 'paymentinit' use lowercase or mixed casing with underscores. Additionally, 'wishlistInt' appears to be a truncated or non-standard name compared to the full descriptive names of other migration classes. — Standardize migration class names to follow PascalCase (e.g., 'WishlistMigration', 'OrderMigration') and method names to follow standard C# conventions (e.g., 'Down' is correct, but class names should be consistent). (symbols: Method: public void WishlistService.Infrastructure.WishListInfrastructureDependencyInjection.AddWishListInfrastructureDependencyInjection(IServiceCollection, IConfiguration), Type: public WishlistService.Infrastructure.Migrations.wishlistInt, Method: protected void OrderService.Infrastructure.Migrations.order_init.Down(MigrationBuilder), Method: protected void Auth.Infrastructure.Migrations.auth_init.Down(MigrationBuilder), Method: protected void Payment.Infrastructure.Migrations.paymentinit.Down(MigrationBuilder))
D21 · Naming Consistency · Spelling error in 'GetAppointmentConfirmationEamil' (missing 'g' in 'Email'). While 'UpdateWishlist' is correctly spelled, the presence of the typo in the email service method indicates a lack of consistency in spelling accuracy across the codebase. · ×1
  • Spelling error in 'GetAppointmentConfirmationEamil' (missing 'g' in 'Email'). While 'UpdateWishlist' is correctly spelled, the presence of the typo in the email service method indicates a lack of consistency in spelling accuracy across the codebase. — Rename to 'GetAppointmentConfirmationEmail'. (symbols: Method: public string Auth.Infrastructure.Services.EmailTemplateService.GetAppointmentConfirmationEamil(string, string, string), Method: public Task<IActionResult> WishlistService.Api.Controllers.WishlistsController.UpdateWishlist(int, WishlistService.Application.Commands.UpdateWishlistCommand))
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent naming for validation/existence checks. 'ValidateProductExistence' uses 'Existence' while 'ValidateOrderExists' and 'ValidateProductExists' use 'Exists'. Additionally, 'CartExpirationBackgroundService' is a noun phrase describing the service, while 'ValidateOrderExists' is a verb phrase describing an action, but they are both validators/validators-like entities. More critically, 'ValidateProductExistence' vs 'ValidateProductExists' is a direct inconsistency for the same concept (checking if a product exists). · ×1
  • Inconsistent naming for validation/existence checks. 'ValidateProductExistence' uses 'Existence' while 'ValidateOrderExists' and 'ValidateProductExists' use 'Exists'. Additionally, 'CartExpirationBackgroundService' is a noun phrase describing the service, while 'ValidateOrderExists' is a verb phrase describing an action, but they are both validators/validators-like entities. More critically, 'ValidateProductExistence' vs 'ValidateProductExists' is a direct inconsistency for the same concept (checking if a product exists). — Standardize to 'ValidateProductExists' to match 'ValidateOrderExists' and 'ValidateProductExists'. (symbols: Method: private void CartService.Infrastructure.Repositories.CartRepository.ValidateProductExistence(List<int>, Shared.Bases.Response<List<ProductService.Domain.Entities.Product>>), Type: internal OrderService.Application.Validators.ValidateOrderExists, Type: internal CartService.Application.BackgroundServices.CartExpirationBackgroundService, Type: internal ProductService.Application.Validators.ValidateProductExists)
D24 · Comment Value · misleading comment · ×1
  • misleading comment src/SharedService/Shared/Repository/GenericRepository.cs:11 — "Use base DbContext, not specific" — fix - the comment restates the field name; it is a deliberate dependency injection choice on a protected readonly field
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 31 of 31 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 31 separate risks. Counted over 31 of the 235 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M3 · Folder & project structure · No tests/ separation · ×1
  • No tests/ separation — Tests aren't grouped in a dedicated test folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
M3 · Folder & project structure · Inconsistent root namespaces · ×1
  • Inconsistent root namespaces — Only 5/37 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×1
  • README/code drift README.md:1 — README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests — searched for: `microservice`, `service-mesh`, `istio`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1
  • Logging is not universal — Only 1/23 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 23, 8 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No rollback/health safety · ×1
  • No rollback/health safety — Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · OIDC metadata fetched over HTTP · ×1
  • OIDC metadata fetched over HTTP src/SharedService/Shared/AuthShared/JwtAuthenticationExtensions.cs:18 — `RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · Secure cookie flags not detected · ×1
  • Secure cookie flags not detected src/AuthService/Auth.Infrastructure/AuthInfrastructureDependencyInjection.cs:60 — No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1
  • Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 63/179 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.
X5 · Nullable reference types · Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score · ×1
  • Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~3.3 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 147 suppression(s) across the 44471 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
Minor — 31 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×29
  • XML-doc coverage: Shared src/SharedService/Shared/Shared.csproj — Shared: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/115).
  • XML-doc coverage: WishlistService.Domain src/WishListService/WishlistService.Domain/WishlistService.Domain.csproj — WishlistService.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/14).
  • XML-doc coverage: WishlistService.Infrastructure src/WishListService/WishlistService.Infrastructure/WishlistService.Infrastructure.csproj — WishlistService.Infrastructure: 5 % XML-doc coverage (1/21).
  • XML-doc coverage: WishlistService.Application src/WishListService/WishlistService.Application/WishlistService.Application.csproj — WishlistService.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/37).
  • XML-doc coverage: WishlistService.Api src/WishListService/WishlistService.Api/WishlistService.Api.csproj — WishlistService.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/10).
  • XML-doc coverage: InventoryService.Domain src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Domain/InventoryService.Domain.csproj — InventoryService.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/16).
  • XML-doc coverage: InventoryService.Infrastructure src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Infrastructure/InventoryService.Infrastructure.csproj — InventoryService.Infrastructure: 7 % XML-doc coverage (1/15).
  • XML-doc coverage: ProductService.Domain src/ProductService/ProductService.Domain/ProductService.Domain.csproj — ProductService.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/11).
  • XML-doc coverage: ProductService.Infrastructure src/ProductService/ProductService.Infrastructure/ProductService.Infrastructure.csproj — ProductService.Infrastructure: 5 % XML-doc coverage (1/20).
  • XML-doc coverage: ProductService.Application src/ProductService/ProductService.Application/ProductService.Application.csproj — ProductService.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/35).
  • XML-doc coverage: ProductService.Api src/ProductService/ProductService.Api/ProductService.Api.csproj — ProductService.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/9).
  • XML-doc coverage: CartService.Domain src/CartService/CartService.Domain/CartService.Domain.csproj — CartService.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
  • XML-doc coverage: CartService.Infrastructure src/CartService/CartService.Infrastructure/CartService.Infrastructure.csproj — CartService.Infrastructure: 5 % XML-doc coverage (1/19).
  • XML-doc coverage: CartService.Application src/CartService/CartService.Application/CartService.Application.csproj — CartService.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/41).
  • XML-doc coverage: InventoryService.Application src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Application/InventoryService.Application.csproj — InventoryService.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/26).
  • XML-doc coverage: Payment.Domain src/PaymentService/Payment.Domain/Payment.Domain.csproj — Payment.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/13).
  • XML-doc coverage: Payment.Infrastructure src/PaymentService/Payment.Infrastructure/Payment.Infrastructure.csproj — Payment.Infrastructure: 12 % XML-doc coverage (2/16).
  • XML-doc coverage: OrderService.Domain src/OrderService/OrderService.Domain/OrderService.Domain.csproj — OrderService.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/21).
  • XML-doc coverage: OrderService.Infrastructure src/OrderService/OrderService.Infrastructure/OrderService.Infrastructure.csproj — OrderService.Infrastructure: 7 % XML-doc coverage (1/14).
  • XML-doc coverage: OrderService.Application src/OrderService/OrderService.Application/OrderService.Application.csproj — OrderService.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/34).
  • XML-doc coverage: Payment.Application src/PaymentService/Payment.Application/Payment.Application.csproj — Payment.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/31).
  • XML-doc coverage: Payment.Api src/PaymentService/Payment.Api/Payment.Api.csproj — Payment.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
  • XML-doc coverage: OrderService.Api src/OrderService/OrderService.Api/OrderService.Api.csproj — OrderService.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/7).
  • XML-doc coverage: InventoryService.Api src/InventoryService/InventoryService.Api/InventoryService.Api.csproj — InventoryService.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/8).
  • XML-doc coverage: CartService.Api src/CartService/CartService.Api/CartService.Api.csproj — CartService.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/9).
  • + 4 more in this group — see findings.md.
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: Moq — Shared references Moq.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: Shared src/SharedService/Shared/Shared.csproj:1 — Shared: abstractness 0.22, instability 0.00, distance 0.78 — the shape a shared-kernel / building-block library has BY DESIGN — concrete and widely depended-on is what makes it useful, and this dimension does not penalise it (the distance is reported for completeness, not as a defect). Worth a look only if it has grown past one coherent kernel into an everything-bucket.

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 --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-f1baa3ebbf8345319bbe1b95ac58d1fd/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-f1baa3ebbf8345319bbe1b95ac58d1fd/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .52artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnone (no readable dependency manifest)—none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .26artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/gdpr.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .1artifacts/raw/semgrep-gdpr.json
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); 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—
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—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesnone (no readable dependency manifest)—none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).0—

Run 01a1613e-73cf-7028-ae92-49a22b23d162 · 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 — 10 field(s) across 2 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, from the C# syntax tree, with a deliberately specific identifier classifier — the same one the C1–C5 compliance cards use to decide whether personal data is present, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip. Two caveats stated rather than glossed: those cards additionally require corroboration (a persistence/account signal, or two distinct PII categories) that this inventory deliberately does not, so it lists more than they gate on; and D32 Data Compliance shares nothing with it — that dimension is a separate semgrep ruleset for personal data leaking into logs, URLs and browser storage, and a clean D32 result says nothing about this list. Informational — it feeds no score.

Email — 7 field(s)
  • ForgotPasswordCommand.Email src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Commands/ForgotPasswordCommand.cs:6
  • LoginCommand.Email src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Commands/LoginCommand.cs:7
  • RegisterAdminCommand.Email src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Commands/RegisterAdminCommand.cs:6
  • ResetPasswordCommand.Email src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Commands/ResetPasswordCommand.cs:6
  • UpdateAppUserCommand.Email src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Commands/UpdateAppUserCommand.cs:7
  • UpdateProfileCommand.Email src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Commands/UpdateAppUserCommand.cs:10
  • AppUserDto.Email src/AuthService/Auth.Domain/Dtos/AppUserDto.cs:3
Phone — 3 field(s)
  • UpdateAppUserCommand.PhoneNumber src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Commands/UpdateAppUserCommand.cs:7
  • UpdateProfileCommand.PhoneNumber src/AuthService/Auth.Application/Commands/UpdateAppUserCommand.cs:10
  • AppUserDto.PhoneNumber src/AuthService/Auth.Domain/Dtos/AppUserDto.cs:3

Issues: 24 · Warnings: 191 · Recommendations: 109 · Info: 31 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 22-10-2026 @ 01:34 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