K8s.Eventing — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

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

neuroglia-io/K8s.Eventing carries serious risk (32%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (18%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Security (31%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution (Test Distribution); CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); Make types internal by default (Library API & versioning).

For scale: Small (~7,229 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

Code Health 51% Adequate · gated by X5 Architecture 63% Adequate · gated by AX2 Maturity 58% Adequate · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 18% ⚠ Critical · gated by D9, D12, P1, P3, P7, P10 Security 31% Weak · gated by D31, C2 Event-Driven 83% Strong Performance 54% Adequate

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Readiness 18% · 46% weightSecurity 31% · 25% weightCode Health 51% · 14% weightPerformance 54% · 8% weightMaturity 58% · 4% weightArchitecture 63% · 2% weightEvent-Driven 83% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 18 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 32 → ~44.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 21%Plumbing 77%Tests 2%

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €3,100–€15,000

Cost to rebuild	€3,100–€15,000 (0.1 person-years (51–160 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	High — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 32% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · 60% boilerplate · 18% straight-line · 22% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€9,100 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 18% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.5) — service/app, CQRS, event-driven integration × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.

+12.6 pts · Low effort · Test Distribution

Resolve the 9 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

+12.2 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

+7.8 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 18%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (7,229 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 18%

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

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 32 ▲ 1 over 13 runs.

OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityPerformance

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

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

At a glance — Code Health · 51% · Adequate · gated by X5

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.8 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 8.3 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.4 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 8.7 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 9.2 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 8.8 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 7.1

The Bad

X1 · Repo Async correctness 6.2 X3 · Repo Exception handling 5.5

The Ugly

X4 · Repo Structured logging 4.6 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 63% · Adequate · gated by AX2

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 8.5 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.4 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 9.8

The Ugly

D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 4.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 4.0 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 2.7

At a glance — Maturity · 58% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 9.1 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 6.0

The Ugly

D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 4.5 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 18% · Critical · gated by D9, D12, P1, P3, P7, P10

The Good

D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.5 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0

The Ugly

D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 3.5 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 2.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 31% · Weak · gated by D31, C2

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0

The Ugly

D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 4.0 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 3.4 C2 · Repo Access Controls 0.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 4.5

At a glance — Event-Driven · 83% · Strong

The Good

ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED2 · Repo Event/command shape 10.0

The Bad

ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 6.1

At a glance — Performance · 54% · Adequate

The Bad

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.0

The Ugly

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 4.5

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	50	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	10	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by addressing the single missing test case in the test distribution to ensure comprehensive coverage. Next, implement a CI workflow to automatically build and run tests on every push or pull request, establishing a reliable safety net. To improve long-term maintainability, restrict type visibility to internal by default and expose only the necessary public API. Additionally, configure standard resilience handlers for HTTP clients to prevent external failures from impacting the application. Finally, resolve the nine deprecated dependencies to maintain a clean and secure codebase.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.	+12.6 pts	Low	Test Distribution
Resolve the 9 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+12.2 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+7.8 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.	+12.6 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates
Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.	+12.6 pts	Medium	Library API & versioning
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.	+12.4 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.	+9.0 pts	Medium	Observability
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.	+7.8 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 14 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 29% slop · 50% mixed · 21% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml	0.0	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014
deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml	0.0	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014
examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml	0.0	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014
src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs	3.1	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
examples/GatewayClient/Dockerfile	6.5	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: HashFile.CreateIndex (cyclomatic 16)
src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Api/Dockerfile	7.2	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Api/Dockerfile	7.2	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Api/Dockerfile	7.2	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs	7.3	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: HashFile.CreateIndex (cyclomatic 16)
src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/Services/EventChannel.cs	7.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src/BuildingBlocks/Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore/ControllerBaseExtensions.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: ControllerBaseExtensions.Process (cognitive 20)
src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/StringExtensions.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)
deployment/kubernetes/kubernetes.csproj	9.5	Near-clean	Solution Shape: Shell project: kubernetes

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. 55 of 59 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 59 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6C2ED1ED2ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P7PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 90 of 141 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f155a-4378-7357-a298-59d96557a4ce.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
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.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (7): D19, D20, D21, D22, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was HashFile.CreateIndex at 16.

HashFile.CreateIndex (cyclomatic 16) · ×2src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:223

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was HashFile.CreateIndex at 59.

HashFile.CreateIndex (cognitive 59) · ×2src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:223

ControllerBaseExtensions.Process (cognitive 20)src/BuildingBlocks/Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore/ControllerBaseExtensions.cs:24

What to do

Resolve the 2 HashFile.CreateIndex (cognitive 59) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with HashFile.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ControllerBaseExtensions.Process (cognitive 20) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ControllerBaseExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

11 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:107

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2)src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:375

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2)src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:599

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2)src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:448

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2)src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:172

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure · ×3

Off the main sequence: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing · ×3

What to do

Resolve the 3 Layer violation finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 11 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No test projects found.

No tests found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

15 outdated, 1 vulnerable, 9 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: AutoMapper

Deprecated: Neuroglia.AspNetCore.Http · ×9

Outdated: CloudNative.CloudEvents · ×15

What to do

Resolve the 9 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 21 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

6 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 7115 LoC (0.7/KLoC) → score 8.7.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×6src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/Services/EventChannel.cs:148

What to do

Resolve the 6 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ResourceController.cs (5), EventChannel.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

16 projects, 114 .cs files, 7229 hand-written lines of code (7115 production / 114 test), 37 inter-project edges.

Shell project: kubernetesdeployment/kubernetes/kubernetes.csproj

Thin analysable surface across projects

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The single README for Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing states the project is an open source .NET 5.0 cloud-event gateway for Kubernetes and Istio, with a Docker image-registry issue noted and a table of contents listing Motivation, Under the Hood, Usage (CRDs/Deploy/Install channel/NATS Streaming/channel/Create broker/Start using), Contributing, and Examples. The document is well structured and complete per its visible outline; however it contains no architecture or design documentation and only one README file, leaving the reader unable to determine how the gateway routes events through NATSS channels versus event-store backends without reading the linked GitHub files.

XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Integration · ×16src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Integration/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Integration.csproj

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. — The single README for Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing states the project is an open source .NET 5.0 cloud-event gateway for Kubernetes and Istio, with a Docker image-registry issue noted and a table of contents listing Motivation, Under the Hood, Usage (CRDs/Deploy/Install channel/NATS Streaming/channel/Create broker/Start using), Contributing, and Examples. The document is well structured and complete per its visible outline; however it contains no architecture or design documentation and only one README file, leaving the reader unable to determine how the gateway routes events through NATSS channels versus event-store backends without reading the linked GitHub files.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

1 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Typo in property name: 'IsSuccessfull' (double 'l') is used instead of the standard 'IsSuccess' or 'IsSuccessful'.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

2 API inconsistencies across 9 exposed types.

Redundant naming for the same operation: 'Pub' vs 'Publish'. Both methods accept a CloudEvent and return IActionResult, indicating they perform the same publish action but with different HTTP route names.

Inconsistent naming for subscription operations: 'Sub'/'Unsub' vs 'Subscribe'/'Unsubscribe'. The first controller uses abbreviated names while others use full descriptive names.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Redundant naming for the same operation finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for subscription operations finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment Value / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

6 valuable / 0 redundant across 28 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

misleading commentsrc/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:201

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 16 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

87 % of calls cross a namespace and 10 % go through an interface, but 97 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 vulnerable package(s): 1 critical, 7 high, 2 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: AutoMapper 9.0.0 · ×7detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.5.0detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

Medium CVE: KubernetesClient 2.0.33 · ×2detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

Resolve the 7 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security3.4 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

61 finding(s): 0 critical, 13 high, 14 medium, 34 low.

High IaC: KSV-0014 · ×13deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yamldetected by trivy finding

Medium IaC: KSV-0001 · ×14deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yamldetected by trivy finding

Low IaC: KSV-0003 · ×23deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yamldetected by trivy finding

What to do

Resolve the 23 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with eventing-core.yaml (10), eventstore.yaml (10), eventing-test.yaml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 13 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (4), eventing-core.yaml (3), eventing-test.yaml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 issue-level).
Resolve the 14 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with eventing-core.yaml (5), eventing-test.yaml (5), eventstore.yaml (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

5 of 5 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/EventRegistry.cs.

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons2.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`ChannelManager` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_Disposed; e.g. `_Disposed` at line 88). — ChannelManager.cs:13
`ResourceController` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_Disposed; e.g. `_Disposed` at line 667). — ResourceController.cs:23
`EventChannel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_Disposed; e.g. `_Disposed` at line 191). — EventChannel.cs:24
`EventChannel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_Disposed; e.g. `_Disposed` at line 431). — EventChannel.cs:27

What to do

Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

`ISubscription` declares 19 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ISubscription.cs:11

What to do

Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C2 · Access Controls0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

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

No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.

What to do

Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED2 · Event/command shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether commands have a single handler (one owner of the decision) and fan-out is modelled with events.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): command-shaped messages identified by convention; handler count per command checked for the exactly-one rule. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

`PublishCloudEventToChannelCommandHandler.Handle` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern (e.g. MassTransit's EF/Marten outbox) so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — PublishCloudEventToChannelCommandHandler.cs:48

What to do

Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`Configure` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — CreateSubscriptionCommandMappingConfiguration.cs:12

What to do

Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 16 of 16 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.

What to do

Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.

What to do

Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

126/127 types (99%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
No <Version>/<VersionPrefix>/GitVersion/MinVer detected. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.

What to do

Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Stamp a semantic version (csproj <Version> or GitVersion/MinVer) and follow semver for breaking changes.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 10/12 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade — add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.

What to do

Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No BenchmarkDotNet suite was found. For a performance-sensitive library, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this library sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it puts on its host — a bonus, not a requirement.

What to do

On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut allocations a consumer would otherwise inherit.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

1 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.
Only 0/103 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.

What to do

Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` unless this is a top-level event handler. (×3) — ResourceController.cs:140, ResourceController.cs:347, ResourceController.cs:447
Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. — EventChannel.cs:354

What to do

async void method: OnChannelEvent

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 33/63 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — ResourceController.cs:140, ResourceController.cs:170, ResourceController.cs:189, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×6) — ResourceController.cs:178, ResourceController.cs:283, ResourceController.cs:484, …

What to do

Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging4.6 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. (×25) — Channel.cs:63, Channel.cs:76, Channel.cs:89, …

What to do

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

0/15 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	51%	Adequate — gated by X5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	63%	Adequate — gated by AX2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	58%	Adequate — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	18%	Critical — gated by D9, D12, P1, P3, P7, P10	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	31%	Weak — gated by D31, C2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven	83%	Strong	Strongest area.
Performance	54%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.

Not included — 39 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D10 Test Quality — ~114 lines of test code exist on disk but weren't loaded from the analyzed solution (excluded from the .sln, or co-located/using a test attribute not loaded here), so test quality couldn't be assessed. Include the tests in the analyzed solution to enable this check.
D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
ED3 Event naming — no domain or integration events detected — event-naming check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — only 1/3 markers (an event-store package (Marten/EventStore))
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 31 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×13

High IaC: KSV-0014 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Root file system is not read-only
High IaC: KSV-0118 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Default security context configured
High IaC: KSV-0118 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Default security context configured
High IaC: KSV-0014 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Root file system is not read-only
High IaC: KSV-0118 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Default security context configured
High IaC: KSV-0118 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Default security context configured
High IaC: DS-0002 examples/GatewayClient/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
High IaC: KSV-0014 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Root file system is not read-only
High IaC: KSV-0118 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Default security context configured
High IaC: KSV-0118 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Default security context configured
High IaC: DS-0002 src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Api/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
High IaC: DS-0002 src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Api/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
High IaC: DS-0002 src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Api/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×7

High CVE: AutoMapper 9.0.0 — AutoMapper 9.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.2 — Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 6 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 8 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 9 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: AutoMapper 10.1.1 — AutoMapper 10.1.1 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http 2.1.1 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http 2.1.1 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 11.0.2 — Newtonsoft.Json 11.0.2 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×6

EmptyCatchBlock src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/Services/EventChannel.cs:148 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:178 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:283 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:484 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:598 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:663 — empty catch block

D5 · Coupling · Layer violation · ×3

Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Application (Application) references Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Application (Application) references Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
Layer violation: Application → Infrastructure — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Application (Application) references Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure (Infrastructure) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×1

Vulnerable: AutoMapper — AutoMapper 10.1.1 — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×1

Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.5.0 — System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.5.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

Warning — 47 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×14

Medium IaC: KSV-0001 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Can elevate its own privileges
Medium IaC: KSV-0012 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Runs as root user
Medium IaC: KSV-0104 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Seccomp policies disabled
Medium IaC: KSV-0117 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Prevent binding to privileged ports
Medium IaC: KSV-0125 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Restrict container images to trusted registries
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Can elevate its own privileges
Medium IaC: KSV-0012 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Runs as root user
Medium IaC: KSV-0104 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Seccomp policies disabled
Medium IaC: KSV-0125 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Restrict container images to trusted registries
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Can elevate its own privileges
Medium IaC: KSV-0012 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Runs as root user
Medium IaC: KSV-0013 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Image tag ":latest" used
Medium IaC: KSV-0104 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Seccomp policies disabled
Medium IaC: KSV-0117 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Prevent binding to privileged ports

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×9

Deprecated: Neuroglia.AspNetCore.Http — Neuroglia.AspNetCore.Http 1.0.1 — Legacy
Deprecated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions 5.0.0 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: Microsoft.Extensions.Http — Microsoft.Extensions.Http 5.0.0 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options — Microsoft.Extensions.Options 5.0.0 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions 5.0.0 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: Neuroglia.CloudEvents — Neuroglia.CloudEvents 1.0.1.1 — Legacy
Deprecated: STAN.Client — STAN.Client 0.3.0 — Legacy NATS.Client.JetStream >= 0.0.0
Deprecated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 5.0.0 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: EventStore.Client — EventStore.Client 20.6.1 — Legacy EventStore.Client.Grpc.Streams >= 0.0.0

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×3

Off the main sequence: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Integration — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Integration: abstractness 0.25, instability 0.00, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore — Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · HashFile.CreateIndex (cyclomatic 16) · ×2

HashFile.CreateIndex (cyclomatic 16) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:223 — HashFile.CreateIndex has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).
HashFile.CreateIndex (cyclomatic 16) src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:223 — HashFile.CreateIndex has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HashFile.CreateIndex (cognitive 59) · ×2

HashFile.CreateIndex (cognitive 59) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:223 — HashFile.CreateIndex has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15).
HashFile.CreateIndex (cognitive 59) src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:223 — HashFile.CreateIndex has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15).

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×2

Medium CVE: KubernetesClient 2.0.33 — KubernetesClient 2.0.33 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 6 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Medium CVE: Microsoft.Rest.ClientRuntime 2.3.10 — Microsoft.Rest.ClientRuntime 2.3.10 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 6 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:107 — src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:107-120 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:107-120
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:199 — src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:199-212 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:199-212

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ControllerBaseExtensions.Process (cognitive 20) · ×1

ControllerBaseExtensions.Process (cognitive 20) src/BuildingBlocks/Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore/ControllerBaseExtensions.cs:24 — ControllerBaseExtensions.Process has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15).

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant naming for the same operation · ×1

Redundant naming for the same operation: 'Pub' vs 'Publish'. Both methods accept a CloudEvent and return IActionResult, indicating they perform the same publish action but with different HTTP route names. — Unify to 'Publish' for clarity and consistency across all controllers. (signatures: EventsController.Pub(CloudEvent cloudEvent) | EventsController.Publish(CloudEvent e))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming for subscription operations · ×1

Inconsistent naming for subscription operations: 'Sub'/'Unsub' vs 'Subscribe'/'Unsubscribe'. The first controller uses abbreviated names while others use full descriptive names. — Standardize on full descriptive names: 'Subscribe' and 'Unsubscribe' across all controllers. (signatures: EventsController.Sub(CreateSubscriptionCommandDto command) | EventsController.Subscribe(SubscriptionOptionsDto subscription) | EventsController.Unsub(string subscriptionId) | EventsController.Unsubscribe(string subscriptionId))

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:375 — src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:375-400 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:375-400

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:599 — src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:599-621 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:599-621

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:448 — src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:448-469 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:448-469

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:172 — src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:172-192 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:172-192

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:537 — src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:537-556 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:537-556

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 6) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:482 — src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:482-500 | src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:517-534 | src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:551-569 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:482-500 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:517-534 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:551-569

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/StringExtensions.cs:24 — src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/StringExtensions.cs:24-34 | src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/StringExtensions.cs:24-34

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:219 — src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:219-226 | src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:252-259 | src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:309-316 | src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:329-336

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:513 — src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:513-520 | src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:615-622 | src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Services/ResourceController.cs:635-642

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

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

Recommendation — 32 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×23

Low IaC: KSV-0003 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Default capabilities: some containers do not drop all
Low IaC: KSV-0004 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Default capabilities: some containers do not drop any
Low IaC: KSV-0011 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — CPU not limited
Low IaC: KSV-0015 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — CPU requests not specified
Low IaC: KSV-0016 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Memory requests not specified
Low IaC: KSV-0018 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Memory not limited
Low IaC: KSV-0020 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Runs with UID <= 10000
Low IaC: KSV-0021 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Runs with GID <= 10000
Low IaC: KSV-0030 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Runtime/Default Seccomp profile not set
Low IaC: KSV-0106 deployment/kubernetes/eventing-core.yaml — Container capabilities must only include NET_BIND_SERVICE
Low IaC: KSV-0003 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Default capabilities: some containers do not drop all
Low IaC: KSV-0004 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Default capabilities: some containers do not drop any
Low IaC: KSV-0011 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — CPU not limited
Low IaC: KSV-0015 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — CPU requests not specified
Low IaC: KSV-0016 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Memory requests not specified
Low IaC: KSV-0018 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Memory not limited
Low IaC: KSV-0020 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Runs with UID <= 10000
Low IaC: KSV-0021 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Runs with GID <= 10000
Low IaC: KSV-0030 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Runtime/Default Seccomp profile not set
Low IaC: KSV-0106 deployment/kubernetes/eventstore.yaml — Container capabilities must only include NET_BIND_SERVICE
Low IaC: DS-0026 examples/GatewayClient/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
Low IaC: KSV-0003 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Default capabilities: some containers do not drop all
Low IaC: KSV-0004 examples/GatewayClient/eventing-test.yaml — Default capabilities: some containers do not drop any

D11 · Test Reliability · No tests discovered · ×1

No tests discovered — Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) built and ran but no tests were discovered, so reliability couldn't be exercised.

D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×1

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

D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1

Thin analysable surface across projects — 2 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore` with 37 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 90 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.8 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.

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

Typo in property name: 'IsSuccessfull' (double 'l') is used instead of the standard 'IsSuccess' or 'IsSuccessful'. — Rename to 'IsSuccess' or 'IsSuccessful' to fix the typo and align with common C# conventions. (symbols: Neuroglia.Mediation.OperationResult.IsSuccessfull, Neuroglia.Mediation.IOperationResult.IsSuccessfull)

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

Bounded contexts not declared — At 7115 LoC across 16 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.

D24 · Comment Value · misleading comment · ×1

misleading comment src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/HashFile.cs:201 — "In GetDif, above `int`: "If all a[n] == b[n] then return zero"" — Fix - this is the 'equal' branch; the comment labels it as 'zero', which is wrong. Correct the label or remove the comment.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1

Further orphaned files (smaller) — 5 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than listed individually (5 orphaned of 5 analysed files in total).

D9 · Test Distribution · No tests found · ×1

No tests found — No test projects found in the repository.

Info — 31 finding(s)

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×16

XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Integration src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Integration/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Integration.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Integration: 100 % XML-doc coverage (36/36).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Infrastructure: 100 % XML-doc coverage (56/56).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Application src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Application/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Application.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Application: 100 % XML-doc coverage (37/37).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Api src/Gateway/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Api/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Api.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Gateway.Api: 100 % XML-doc coverage (12/12).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing src/BuildingBlocks/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing: 100 % XML-doc coverage (74/74).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Infrastructure: 100 % XML-doc coverage (31/31).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Application src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Application/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Application.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Application: 100 % XML-doc coverage (20/20).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Api src/Channels/NATSS/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Api/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Api.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.Nats.Api: 100 % XML-doc coverage (12/12).
XML-doc coverage: GatewayClient examples/GatewayClient/GatewayClient.csproj — GatewayClient: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/18).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.AutoMapper src/BuildingBlocks/Neuroglia.AutoMapper/Neuroglia.AutoMapper.csproj — Neuroglia.AutoMapper: 100 % XML-doc coverage (5/5).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.Mediation src/BuildingBlocks/Neuroglia.Mediation/Neuroglia.Mediation.csproj — Neuroglia.Mediation: 100 % XML-doc coverage (60/60).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore src/BuildingBlocks/Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore/Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore.csproj — Neuroglia.Mediation.AspNetCore: 100 % XML-doc coverage (2/2).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Infrastructure: 100 % XML-doc coverage (56/56).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Api src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Api/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Api.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Api: 100 % XML-doc coverage (12/12).
XML-doc coverage: Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Application src/Channels/EventStore/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Application/Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Application.csproj — Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.Channels.EventStore.Application: 100 % XML-doc coverage (32/32).
XML-doc coverage: kubernetes deployment/kubernetes/kubernetes.csproj — kubernetes: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×15

Outdated: CloudNative.CloudEvents — CloudNative.CloudEvents 1.3.80 → 2.8.0 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions 5.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Http — Microsoft.Extensions.Http 5.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options — Microsoft.Extensions.Options 5.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: AutoMapper.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection — AutoMapper.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection 8.1.0 → 12.0.1 available.
Outdated: CloudNative.CloudEvents.AspNetCore — CloudNative.CloudEvents.AspNetCore 1.3.80 → 2.8.0 available.
Outdated: MediatR.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection — MediatR.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection 9.0.0 → 11.1.0 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.VisualStudio.Azure.Containers.Tools.Targets — Microsoft.VisualStudio.Azure.Containers.Tools.Targets 1.10.9 → 1.23.0 available.
Outdated: Neuroglia.K8s — Neuroglia.K8s 1.0.0.3 → 1.0.1.4 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions 5.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNet.WebApi.Client — Microsoft.AspNet.WebApi.Client 5.2.7 → 6.0.0 available.
Outdated: AutoMapper — AutoMapper 10.1.1 → 16.1.1 available.
Outdated: MediatR — MediatR 9.0.0 → 14.1.0 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 5.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: EventStore.Client — EventStore.Client 20.6.1 → 22.0.0 available.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list Neuroglia.K8s.Eventing.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	10	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	61	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.	0	—

Run 019f155a-4378-7357-a298-59d96557a4ce · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Neuroglia-Io/K8s.Eventing

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Trajectory

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

At a glance — Code Health · 51% · Adequate · gated by X5

At a glance — Architecture · 63% · Adequate · gated by AX2

At a glance — Maturity · 58% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2

At a glance — Readiness · 18% · Critical · gated by D9, D12, P1, P3, P7, P10

At a glance — Security · 31% · Weak · gated by D31, C2

At a glance — Event-Driven · 83% · Strong

At a glance — Performance · 54% · Adequate

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts