Executive summary
Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.
The system holds an adequate overall standing of 62%, reflecting a small, manageable asset that is functionally sound but operationally fragile. With a rebuild cost of roughly €33,000 and minimal boilerplate, the codebase is lean, yet its low readiness score signals that day-to-day stability is not guaranteed. This creates a scenario where the business enjoys low technical debt but faces disproportionate risk from operational gaps.
The primary concern is operational fragility. Despite strong architectural design and high performance, the system lacks the safeguards needed for reliable production use. With a readiness score of 55%, there is a tangible risk of unexpected outages or deployment failures that could disrupt service. This gap undermines confidence in the system’s ability to handle changes or recover from issues without significant manual intervention, potentially leading to higher support costs and slower response times during incidents.
Conversely, the codebase demonstrates strong foundational health. The architecture is robust at 85%, and performance is perfect, indicating that the core logic is efficient and well-structured. The small size and low rebuild effort mean that the underlying asset is valuable and not burdened by legacy complexity. This strength provides a solid base for improvement, as the core functionality is reliable and easy to understand, provided the operational layer is strengthened.
To maximize leverage, the immediate focus should be on establishing release discipline. Implementing a changelog is the highest-return action, as it provides visibility into what has changed, reducing uncertainty and aiding in rollback decisions. This simple step addresses the most critical gap in operational transparency. Following this, adding tests for unreached modules and enforcing type checking will further stabilize the system. These actions are low-cost but high-impact, directly addressing the readiness weaknesses without requiring a major rewrite. The picture is partial, as domain modeling and event-driven aspects were not measured, but the current risks are clear and actionable.
Raise Readiness 55 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 62 → ~66.
New since the last scan (5+)
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €11,000–€56,000
| Cost to rebuild | €11,000–€56,000 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 62% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€33,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 55% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Architecture — module dependency graph
Architecture — module dependency matrix
| depends on → | 1 (global) | 2 Backpex.Preferences | 3 Demo | 4 Demo.Preferences | 5 Mix.Tasks.Backpex.Install | 6 assets.js.hooks | 7 demo.assets.js | 8 test.js | 9 Backpex | 10 Backpex.Filters | 11 Backpex.HTML | 12 Backpex.ItemActions | 13 Backpex.LiveResource | 14 Backpex.Metrics | 15 Backpex.Preferences.Adapters | 16 DemoWeb.ItemActions | 17 Backpex.Adapters | 18 Backpex.Fields | 19 DemoWeb | 20 DemoWeb.Filters | 21 DemoWeb.ResourceActions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (global) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 Backpex.Preferences | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 Demo | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 Demo.Preferences | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 Mix.Tasks.Backpex.Install | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 assets.js.hooks | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 demo.assets.js | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 test.js | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 Backpex | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 Backpex.Filters | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 Backpex.HTML | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 Backpex.ItemActions | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 Backpex.LiveResource | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 Backpex.Metrics | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 Backpex.Preferences.Adapters | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 DemoWeb.ItemActions | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 Backpex.Adapters | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 Backpex.Fields | 18 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 19 DemoWeb | 14 | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 20 DemoWeb.Filters | 7 | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 21 DemoWeb.ResourceActions | 2 |
9→1 Backpex depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Backpex → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
Backpex.FormComponent→BackpexWebBackpex.InitAssigns→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- Backpex uses (global). Changing (global) can break Backpex, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→1 Backpex.Filters depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 4 distinct (type in Backpex.Filters → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
Backpex.Filters.Boolean→BackpexWebBackpex.Filters.MultiSelect→BackpexWebBackpex.Filters.Range→BackpexWebBackpex.Filters.Select→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- Backpex.Filters uses (global). Changing (global) can break Backpex.Filters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
11→1 Backpex.HTML depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 5 distinct (type in Backpex.HTML → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
Backpex.HTML.CoreComponents→BackpexWebBackpex.HTML.Form→BackpexWebBackpex.HTML.ItemAction→BackpexWebBackpex.HTML.Layout→BackpexWebBackpex.HTML.Resource→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- Backpex.HTML uses (global). Changing (global) can break Backpex.HTML, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→1 Backpex.ItemActions depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in Backpex.ItemActions → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
Backpex.ItemActions.Delete→BackpexWebBackpex.ItemActions.Edit→BackpexWebBackpex.ItemActions.Show→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- Backpex.ItemActions uses (global). Changing (global) can break Backpex.ItemActions, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→1 Backpex.LiveResource depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in Backpex.LiveResource → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
Backpex.LiveResource.Form→BackpexWebBackpex.LiveResource.Index→BackpexWebBackpex.LiveResource.Show→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- Backpex.LiveResource uses (global). Changing (global) can break Backpex.LiveResource, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
14→1 Backpex.Metrics depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Backpex.Metrics → type in (global)) reference.
- Which types
Backpex.Metrics.Value→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- Backpex.Metrics uses (global). Changing (global) can break Backpex.Metrics, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
15→2 Backpex.Preferences.Adapters depends on Backpex.Preferences✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Backpex.Preferences.Adapters → type in Backpex.Preferences) references.
- Which types
Backpex.Preferences.Adapters.Ecto→Backpex.Preferences.AdapterBackpex.Preferences.Adapters.Session→Backpex.Preferences.Adapter
- Direction
- Backpex.Preferences.Adapters uses Backpex.Preferences. Changing Backpex.Preferences can break Backpex.Preferences.Adapters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
16→1 DemoWeb.ItemActions depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in DemoWeb.ItemActions → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
DemoWeb.ItemActions.DuplicateTag→BackpexWebDemoWeb.ItemActions.UserSoftDelete→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- DemoWeb.ItemActions uses (global). Changing (global) can break DemoWeb.ItemActions, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
17→9 Backpex.Adapters depends on Backpex✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Backpex.Adapters → type in Backpex) reference.
- Which types
Backpex.Adapters.Ecto→Backpex.Adapter
- Direction
- Backpex.Adapters uses Backpex. Changing Backpex can break Backpex.Adapters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→1 Backpex.Fields depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 18 distinct (type in Backpex.Fields → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
Backpex.Fields.BelongsTo→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Boolean→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Checkgroup→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Currency→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Date→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.DateTime→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Email→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.HasMany→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.HasManyThrough→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.InlineCRUD→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.MultiSelect→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Number→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Select→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Text→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Textarea→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Time→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.URL→BackpexWebBackpex.Fields.Upload→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- Backpex.Fields uses (global). Changing (global) can break Backpex.Fields, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→9 Backpex.Fields depends on Backpex✕
- Type pairs
- 18 distinct (type in Backpex.Fields → type in Backpex) references.
- Which types
Backpex.Fields.BelongsTo→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Boolean→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Checkgroup→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Currency→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Date→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.DateTime→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Email→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.HasMany→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.HasManyThrough→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.InlineCRUD→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.MultiSelect→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Number→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Select→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Text→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Textarea→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Time→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.URL→Backpex.FieldBackpex.Fields.Upload→Backpex.Field
- Direction
- Backpex.Fields uses Backpex. Changing Backpex can break Backpex.Fields, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→1 DemoWeb depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 14 distinct (type in DemoWeb → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
DemoWeb.AddressLive→BackpexWebDemoWeb.CategoryLive→BackpexWebDemoWeb.ErrorHTML→DemoWebDemoWeb.FilmReviewLive→BackpexWebDemoWeb.InvoiceLive→BackpexWebDemoWeb.Layouts→DemoWebDemoWeb.PostLive→BackpexWebDemoWeb.ProductLive→BackpexWebDemoWeb.RedirectController→DemoWebDemoWeb.Router→DemoWebDemoWeb.ShortLinkLive→BackpexWebDemoWeb.ShortLinkLive→DemoWebDemoWeb.TagLive→BackpexWebDemoWeb.UserLive→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- DemoWeb uses (global). Changing (global) can break DemoWeb, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→9 DemoWeb depends on Backpex✕
- Type pairs
- 9 distinct (type in DemoWeb → type in Backpex) references.
- Which types
DemoWeb.AddressLive→Backpex.LiveResourceDemoWeb.CategoryLive→Backpex.LiveResourceDemoWeb.FilmReviewLive→Backpex.LiveResourceDemoWeb.InvoiceLive→Backpex.LiveResourceDemoWeb.PostLive→Backpex.LiveResourceDemoWeb.ProductLive→Backpex.LiveResourceDemoWeb.ShortLinkLive→Backpex.LiveResourceDemoWeb.TagLive→Backpex.LiveResourceDemoWeb.UserLive→Backpex.LiveResource
- Direction
- DemoWeb uses Backpex. Changing Backpex can break DemoWeb, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→1 DemoWeb.Filters depends on (global)✕
- Type pairs
- 7 distinct (type in DemoWeb.Filters → type in (global)) references.
- Which types
DemoWeb.Filters.DateRange→BackpexWebDemoWeb.Filters.DateTimeRange→BackpexWebDemoWeb.Filters.PostCategorySelect→BackpexWebDemoWeb.Filters.PostLikeRange→BackpexWebDemoWeb.Filters.PostPublished→BackpexWebDemoWeb.Filters.PostUserMultiSelect→BackpexWebDemoWeb.Filters.ProductQuantityRange→BackpexWeb
- Direction
- DemoWeb.Filters uses (global). Changing (global) can break DemoWeb.Filters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→9 DemoWeb.Filters depends on Backpex✕
- Type pairs
- 7 distinct (type in DemoWeb.Filters → type in Backpex) references.
- Which types
DemoWeb.Filters.DateRange→Backpex.FilterDemoWeb.Filters.DateTimeRange→Backpex.FilterDemoWeb.Filters.PostCategorySelect→Backpex.FilterDemoWeb.Filters.PostLikeRange→Backpex.FilterDemoWeb.Filters.PostPublished→Backpex.FilterDemoWeb.Filters.PostUserMultiSelect→Backpex.FilterDemoWeb.Filters.ProductQuantityRange→Backpex.Filter
- Direction
- DemoWeb.Filters uses Backpex. Changing Backpex can break DemoWeb.Filters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→10 DemoWeb.Filters depends on Backpex.Filters✕
- Type pairs
- 7 distinct (type in DemoWeb.Filters → type in Backpex.Filters) references.
- Which types
DemoWeb.Filters.DateRange→Backpex.Filters.RangeDemoWeb.Filters.DateTimeRange→Backpex.Filters.RangeDemoWeb.Filters.PostCategorySelect→Backpex.Filters.SelectDemoWeb.Filters.PostLikeRange→Backpex.Filters.RangeDemoWeb.Filters.PostPublished→Backpex.Filters.BooleanDemoWeb.Filters.PostUserMultiSelect→Backpex.Filters.MultiSelectDemoWeb.Filters.ProductQuantityRange→Backpex.Filters.Range
- Direction
- DemoWeb.Filters uses Backpex.Filters. Changing Backpex.Filters can break DemoWeb.Filters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
21→9 DemoWeb.ResourceActions depends on Backpex✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in DemoWeb.ResourceActions → type in Backpex) references.
- Which types
DemoWeb.ResourceActions.Email→Backpex.ResourceActionDemoWeb.ResourceActions.Upload→Backpex.ResourceAction
- Direction
- DemoWeb.ResourceActions uses Backpex. Changing Backpex can break DemoWeb.ResourceActions, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Accessibility
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 8 | High / Critical |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 2 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 2 | Medium |
Roadmap
First, establish release hygiene by maintaining a changelog to clearly record what ships in each release. Next, improve code reliability by adding tests for currently unreached modules and implementing type checking in CI to catch errors early. Finally, enhance operational safety by adopting observability tools like OpenTelemetry or health checks, and enforce an approval gate before promoting changes to production.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 4 Unbounded dependency requirement finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +3.8 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +6.3 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +6.3 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
| Add type checking (adopt TypeScript, or type-check the existing JavaScript with `checkJs`) as package.json scripts and run them in CI. | +6.0 pts | Medium | Tooling |
| Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with opentelemetry_phoenix, or PromEx) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route in your Phoenix router or Plug) for operability. | +5.9 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion. | +4.9 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +3.7 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). | +3.7 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 0.4 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED |
| lib/backpex/fields/has_many.ex | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| lib/backpex/live_resource/index.ex | 6.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| lib/backpex/adapters/ecto.ex | 6.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| REDACTED | 6.9 | Mixed | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED |
| lib/backpex/live_resource/form.ex | 7.0 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| lib/backpex/html/resource.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: html/resource.ex |
| lib/backpex/html/layout.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: html/layout.ex |
| lib/backpex/live_resource.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: backpex/live_resource.ex |
| lib/backpex/html/form.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: html/form.ex |
| lib/backpex/fields/date.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) |
| lib/backpex/live_components/form_component.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) |
| lib/backpex/fields/boolean.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (69 lines × 4) |
| lib/backpex/fields/belongs_to.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) |
| lib/backpex/fields/date_time.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) |
| demo/lib/demo_web/live/user_live.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) |
| demo/lib/demo/address.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) |
| demo/lib/demo_web/live/product_live.ex | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) |
How the grades work
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.
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.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
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. 64 of 67 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 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.
What we checked — 67 dimensions across the health lenses
- 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, 44 of 67 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — 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. 1 process module(s) keep their state in something other than a record or struct (a map or a tuple), which this pass does not read as fields, and no other module held state it could measure.
- 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: test source is present (.exs, .ex, .js) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `mix test --cover` with `excoveralls` (`mix coveralls.lcov`), or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) 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. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `mix test --cover` with `excoveralls` (`mix coveralls.lcov`), or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) 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 — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- D9 Test Distribution — 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. Test distribution NOT SCORED: this repository's production source spans more than one ecosystem, and the test-pyramid census cannot read the .ex test suite(s) — so the pyramid was not measured for the repository as a whole. The suites we could count came back with 7 test method(s) (7 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e), but that is a shape for one part of the product and we do not publish a partial pyramid as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — test distribution is excluded from the score rather than counted.
- D10 Test Quality — 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. The 7 test(s) behind this row are the ones the JavaScript/TypeScript census could read, and this repository also carries at least 115 test source file(s) (.exs, .ex) that it cannot: it reads JavaScript/TypeScript test declarations off disk, so a JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
- D11 Test Reliability — 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. Test source is present (.exs, .ex, .js) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D14 License Compliance — 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. This repository declares package.json, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its Hex package dependencies. Nothing was read about its npm dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (package.json), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
- AX6 Interface segregation — 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. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- C1 Data Protection — 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. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — 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. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — 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. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — 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. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — 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. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — 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. This check reads C# syntax and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and this repository's Elixir is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — 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. This check reads C# syntax and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and this repository's Elixir is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — 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. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — 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. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded, and no named async function in this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch), so there is nothing to judge, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and Java source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's TypeScript/JavaScript is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, Rust and Erlang source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Rust or Erlang was found, and this repository's Elixir, JavaScript is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X3 Exception handling — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby or Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X4 Structured logging — 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. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript makes no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — 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. X7 measured the part of this repository it reads (C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin and PHP), and its Elixir source is outside the check's reach, so the card covers only part of the product. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the unread source is free of silent defaults.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — 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.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (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.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- 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.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
7 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.
What to do
- Resolve the 6 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with resource.ex, layout.ex, index.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with ecto.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D4 · Code Duplication
10 duplicated block group(s) detected. 3 of the 10 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with belongs_to.ex, date_time.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with date.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with form_component.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D5 · Coupling
2 production modules (npm+OTP), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 1 of the 2 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 7 tests. Measured on the JavaScript/TypeScript suite only — at least 115 test source file(s) (.exs, .ex) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
4 outdated, 0 retired direct Hex dependencies, 4 pinning defect(s). Whether any of these packages is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — hex.pm publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: a Hex app name does not determine the modules it provides (`ecto_sql` provides Ecto.Adapters.SQL), and a large idiomatic class of BEAM dependencies — runtime adapters, codec plugins, protocol implementations and OTP applications the release starts — is correctly declared and never referenced in source, so absence of a reference is not evidence of an unused dependency. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.
What to do
- Resolve the 4 Unbounded dependency requirement finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 55 shipped Hex package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from hex.pm over the packages a consumer installs — this repository's REDACTED closed over the declarations its mix.exs files do not gate behind `only:`. Packages it asks for ONLY under `only: [:dev, :test]` (or any other non-prod environment, such as `:docs`) are excluded: they are not installed by anything that depends on this repository. Each licence is the one hex.pm publishes for the package's current release. A further 1 package(s) the closure reaches resolve from git, a path or a local override and publish no licence this pass can read; they are outside this verdict. This repository publishes itself under MIT, which is its own choice and is not judged here. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's Hex package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares package.json, and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D16 · Bus Factor
17 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is lib/backpex/preferences.ex. Counted over 59 of the 72 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D17 · Explicit Debt
3 deducted task-comment markers across 18325 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
What to do
- Resolve the 3 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ecto.ex, has_many.ex, index.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's single README is a well-structured root-level overview that states what the project does (a customizable Phoenix LiveView admin panel built on LiveResources) and links to installation, contribution, and license documentation. It includes an impressive feature list and a live demo link, but it is itself only one file, so no per-file quality judgment applies.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's single README is a well-structured root-level overview that states what the project does (a customizable Phoenix LiveView admin panel built on LiveResources) and links to installation, contribution, and license documentation. It includes an impressive feature list and a live demo link, but it is itself only one file, so no per-file quality judgment applies.
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
1 of 1 build units (npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
8 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 3 medium, 1 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 4 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
- Resolve the 3 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 59 of the 72 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: form.ex↔index.ex 65%; index.ex↔show.ex 60%; form.ex↔show.ex 59%
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Change coupling clique finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with form.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 3 platform declaration(s) and 1 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.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC2 · Forms & labels
AC3 · Page structure
AC5 · ARIA correctness
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (an a11y linter that can read your UI — no component framework was detected, so the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins would have nothing to lint; use an HTML-template a11y linter (html-eslint, htmlhint) or run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 6 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an a11y linter that can read your UI — no component framework was detected, so the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins would have nothing to lint; use an HTML-template a11y linter (html-eslint, htmlhint) or run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
M1 · Documentation (README)
- 71 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
- Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- 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 significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
P1 · CI/CD gates
P10 · Library API & versioning
P2 · Observability
What to do
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with opentelemetry_phoenix, or PromEx) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route in your Phoenix router or Plug) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever reaches the release trigger goes to production unreviewed, so a mistaken merge or tag is live before anyone can stop it.
What to do
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
R1 · Type Safety
- 0 typed · 13 plain JS — the untyped files are assets/js/backpex.js, assets/js/hooks/_cancel_entry.js, assets/js/hooks/_currency_input.js, assets/js/hooks/_drag_hover.js, assets/js/hooks/_dropdown.js, assets/js/hooks/_preferences.js (+7 more).
What to do
- Adopt TypeScript for the frontend: add a typecheck step to the build, then either type-check the existing JavaScript in place (`checkJs`/JSDoc types) or convert the highest-traffic modules first — no file is typed today, so this is an adoption, not a clean-up.
R10 · Code Duplication
- assets/js/hooks/_preferences.js:157 · assets/js/hooks/_preferences.js:385 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 55 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — assets/js/hooks/_preferences.js:157
What to do
- Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
What to do
- Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files
- 1 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: assets/js/hooks/_preferences.js (528).
What to do
- Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
R4 · Test Coverage
- No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×10) — assets/js/hooks/_sidebar.js, assets/js/hooks/_sidebar_sections.js, assets/js/hooks/_dropdown.js, …
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.
What to do
- Add type checking (adopt TypeScript, or type-check the existing JavaScript with `checkJs`) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
R7 · Dead Code
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
R9 · Circular Imports
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 63% | Adequate — gated by R1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 85% | Adequate — gated by D26 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 60% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 55% | Adequate — gated by R4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 82% | Adequate — gated by D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Accessibility | 80% | Strong | Solid. |
| Performance | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 61 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: the BEAM has no dependency-injection container — state lives in processes, and no process is handed an instance whose lifetime another one scopes.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Elixir processes share no mutable memory — state lives in a process's own mailbox — so there is no shared object to race on. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 14 — a file the compose project references is missing) — env file demo/.env not found: stat demo/.env: no such file or directory; 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.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — no .exs test runner
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — cohesion (LCOM4) not measured — process state held outside a record or struct
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test distribution not scored — polyglot repository, one half's tests are uncountable
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# and JavaScript/TypeScript, and neither was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Elixir, JavaScript/TypeScript source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `mix test --cover` with `excoveralls` (`mix coveralls.lcov`)) 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 — Benchmark discipline was not assessed: this repository is written in Elixir, whose benchmark frameworks this check does not search yet. That is a gap in the analyzer's language reach, not a finding about your code.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Elixir and TypeScript/JavaScript runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a bun lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Elixir processes share no heap: a value sent to another process arrives as a copy, so no collection is reachable from two processes at once. TypeScript/JavaScript runs every callback on the one thread that owns its objects: a callback runs only when the body waiting on it has yielded, never alongside it, and a worker thread receives a COPY of what it is sent. A SharedArrayBuffer carries raw bytes, never an Array, Map or Set, so no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — Not applicable: this check asks whether the null-typed discipline a language offers is switched on, and how much of that the assertion operator takes back, and in this repository's languages there is no such switch and no such operator. Elixir's `nil` is an atom in a dynamically typed language: `@spec`s are checked by an external analysis that has no nullability operator, so there is no null-typed discipline in the language to adopt. Plain JavaScript carries no type annotations and commits no tsconfig, so it states no null-typed discipline for this check to grade: there is nothing here that switches null checking on or off, and TypeScript (or `// @ts-check`) is how a repository acquires one — advice, not a defect this card measures. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- 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.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 6 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
Serious — 47 finding(s)
- No test reaches this file assets/js/hooks/_sidebar.js
- No test reaches this file assets/js/hooks/_sidebar_sections.js
- No test reaches this file assets/js/hooks/_dropdown.js
- No test reaches this file assets/js/hooks/_theme_selector.js
- No test reaches this file assets/js/hooks/_tooltip.js
- No test reaches this file assets/js/hooks/_currency_input.js
- No test reaches this file assets/js/hooks/_sticky_actions.js
- No test reaches this file assets/js/hooks/_drag_hover.js
- No test reaches this file assets/js/hooks/_cancel_entry.js
- No test reaches this file assets/js/backpex.js
- FileTooLong: html/resource.ex lib/backpex/html/resource.ex
- FileTooLong: html/layout.ex lib/backpex/html/layout.ex
- FileTooLong: live_resource/index.ex lib/backpex/live_resource/index.ex
- FileTooLong: backpex/live_resource.ex lib/backpex/live_resource.ex
- FileTooLong: html/form.ex lib/backpex/html/form.ex
- FileTooLong: fields/has_many.ex lib/backpex/fields/has_many.ex
- Unbounded dependency requirement: postgrex
- Unbounded dependency requirement: jason
- Unbounded dependency requirement: gettext
- Unbounded dependency requirement: postgrex
- TodoComment lib/backpex/adapters/ecto.ex:337
- TodoComment lib/backpex/fields/has_many.ex:390
- TodoComment lib/backpex/live_resource/index.ex:752
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) lib/backpex/fields/belongs_to.ex:292
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) lib/backpex/fields/date_time.ex:122
- Accessibility enforcement below the top rung
- TooManyFunctions: Ecto lib/backpex/adapters/ecto.ex:2
- Change coupling clique: form.ex, index.ex, show.ex lib/backpex/live_resource/form.ex
- REDACTED
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) lib/backpex/fields/date.ex:77
- Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) lib/backpex/live_components/form_component.ex:246
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) lib/backpex/live_resource/form.ex:47
- Duplicated block (69 lines × 4) lib/backpex/fields/boolean.ex:27
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) lib/backpex/fields/has_many.ex:648
- Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) demo/lib/demo_web/live/user_live.ex:243
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) demo/lib/demo/address.ex:24
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) demo/lib/demo_web/live/product_live.ex:196
- README may be stale
- Type Safety
- Duplicated block with local edits (8 matched lines × 2 locations) assets/js/hooks/_preferences.js:157
- Large Files
- No typecheck script
Minor — 10 finding(s)
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
- Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No ADRs
- No release approval gate
- No changelog
Minor — 4 finding(s)
- Outdated: dns_cluster
- Outdated: igniter_js
- Outdated: sobelow
- Outdated: sobelow
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-1bdd27e5124e4f51ae25ad045641fdf9/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/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-1bdd27e5124e4f51ae25ad045641fdf9/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/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 . | 2 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 2 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 8 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |