Executive summary
nicusX/kotlin-event-sourcing-example scores 61 out of 100 and is rated Strong, while six of its seven lenses score higher still: Performance at 100, Security and Compliance at 95, Code Health at 87 and Maturity at 83, all rated Exemplary, Domain Modelling at 81, rated Adequate, and Architecture at 69, rated Strong. Watchdog judged it as a template, sample or demo, meant to be read or copied, so the dimensions about building, releasing and running a product don't apply, and its lenses are rated against a lower bar. The score itself is worked out as for any repository.
The score is lower than those six because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 42 and is rated Adequate. Its Security & performance tooling dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to port the existing pipeline to a CI service that is still operating — the build and test steps are already specified — and remove the dead configuration and its badge so the repository stops advertising a gate that no longer exists and to keep a changelog (e.g, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 61 to about 74.
No finding in this survey is critical.
Watchdog couldn't measure 14 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Dependency Hygiene, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 1,086 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €3,400, to rebuild.
If Production Readiness rose from 42 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 61 to about 74.
Rebuild cost: about €3,400 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €1,100 to €5,600, for 19 to 59 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write. |
| Quality factor | ×0.8 at a score of 61. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it. |
| Size | Very small: 1,086 lines of product code |
Top priorities
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 api.CommandDispatcher | 2 api.StudentReadController | 3 api.TrainingClassReadController | 4 domain.EventSourcedRepository | 5 domain.RegisteredEmailsIndex | 6 messagebus.AsyncInMemoryBus | 7 messagebus.InMemoryBus | 8 readmodels | 9 readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailsProjection | 10 readmodels.studentlist.StudentListProjection | 11 readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassProjection | 12 domain.Student | 13 domain.TrainingClass | 14 domain | 15 domain.AggregateRoot | 16 domain.EventStoreFailure | 17 domain.StudentInvariantViolation | 18 domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation | 19 eventstore.BaseEventStore | 20 messagebus | 21 readmodels.studentdetails | 22 readmodels.studentlist | 23 readmodels.trainingclasses | 24 api | 25 eventstore | 26 eventsourcing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 api.CommandDispatcher | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 api.StudentReadController | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 api.TrainingClassReadController | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 domain.EventSourcedRepository | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 domain.RegisteredEmailsIndex | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 messagebus.AsyncInMemoryBus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 messagebus.InMemoryBus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 readmodels | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailsProjection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 readmodels.studentlist.StudentListProjection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassProjection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 domain.Student | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 domain.TrainingClass | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 domain | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 domain.AggregateRoot | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 domain.EventStoreFailure | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 domain.StudentInvariantViolation | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 eventstore.BaseEventStore | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 messagebus | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 readmodels.studentdetails | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 readmodels.studentlist | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 readmodels.trainingclasses | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 api | 13 | 3 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 eventstore | 6 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 eventsourcing | 2 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
12→14 domain.Student uses domain part of a loop✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in domain.Student uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.domain.Student.Companion→eventsourcing.domain.RegisteredEmailsIndexeventsourcing.domain.Student.Companion→eventsourcing.domain.StudentRepositoryeventsourcing.domain.Student.TYPE→eventsourcing.domain.AggregateType
- Direction
- domain.Student uses domain, so a change to domain can break domain.Student, while a change to domain.Student can't break domain.
- Position
- Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
13→14 domain.TrainingClass uses domain part of a loop✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain.TrainingClass uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClass.TYPE→eventsourcing.domain.AggregateType
- Direction
- domain.TrainingClass uses domain, so a change to domain can break domain.TrainingClass, while a change to domain.TrainingClass can't break domain.
- Position
- Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
14→12 domain uses domain.Student✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain uses a type in domain.Student.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.domain.Student→eventsourcing.domain.Student.TYPE
- Direction
- domain uses domain.Student, so a change to domain.Student can break domain, while a change to domain can't break domain.Student.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
14→13 domain uses domain.TrainingClass✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain uses a type in domain.TrainingClass.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClass→eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClass.TYPE
- Direction
- domain uses domain.TrainingClass, so a change to domain.TrainingClass can break domain, while a change to domain can't break domain.TrainingClass.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→14 domain.AggregateRoot uses domain✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain.AggregateRoot uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.domain.AggregateRoot.Companion→eventsourcing.domain.Event
- Direction
- domain.AggregateRoot uses domain, so a change to domain can break domain.AggregateRoot, while a change to domain.AggregateRoot can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain.AggregateRoot uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→14 domain.EventStoreFailure uses domain✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain.EventStoreFailure uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.domain.EventStoreFailure.ConcurrentChangeDetected→eventsourcing.domain.EventStoreFailure
- Direction
- domain.EventStoreFailure uses domain, so a change to domain can break domain.EventStoreFailure, while a change to domain.EventStoreFailure can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain.EventStoreFailure uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→14 domain.StudentInvariantViolation uses domain✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain.StudentInvariantViolation uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.domain.StudentInvariantViolation.EmailAlreadyInUse→eventsourcing.domain.StudentInvariantViolation
- Direction
- domain.StudentInvariantViolation uses domain, so a change to domain can break domain.StudentInvariantViolation, while a change to domain.StudentInvariantViolation can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain.StudentInvariantViolation uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→14 domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation uses domain✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation.ClassHasNoAvailableSpots→eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolationeventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation.InvalidClassSize→eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolationeventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation.StudentAlreadyEnrolled→eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolationeventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation.UnenrollingNotEnrolledStudent→eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation
- Direction
- domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation uses domain, so a change to domain can break domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation, while a change to domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain.TrainingClassInvariantViolation uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
19→14 eventstore.BaseEventStore uses domain✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in eventstore.BaseEventStore uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore.EventDescriptor→eventsourcing.domain.Eventeventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore.StreamKey→eventsourcing.domain.AggregateType
- Direction
- eventstore.BaseEventStore uses domain, so a change to domain can break eventstore.BaseEventStore, while a change to eventstore.BaseEventStore can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: eventstore.BaseEventStore uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
20→14 messagebus uses domain✕
- Connections
- 6 pairs of types, where a type in messagebus uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.messagebus.AsyncInMemoryBus→eventsourcing.domain.Eventeventsourcing.messagebus.AsyncInMemoryBus→eventsourcing.domain.EventPublishereventsourcing.messagebus.AsyncInMemoryBus→eventsourcing.domain.Handleseventsourcing.messagebus.InMemoryBus→eventsourcing.domain.Eventeventsourcing.messagebus.InMemoryBus→eventsourcing.domain.EventPublishereventsourcing.messagebus.InMemoryBus→eventsourcing.domain.Handles
- Direction
- messagebus uses domain, so a change to domain can break messagebus, while a change to messagebus can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: messagebus uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→8 readmodels.studentdetails uses readmodels✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in readmodels.studentdetails uses a type in readmodels.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailsProjection→eventsourcing.readmodels.DocumentStoreeventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailsReadModel→eventsourcing.readmodels.DocumentStore
- Direction
- readmodels.studentdetails uses readmodels, so a change to readmodels can break readmodels.studentdetails, while a change to readmodels.studentdetails can't break readmodels.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: readmodels.studentdetails uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→14 readmodels.studentdetails uses domain✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in readmodels.studentdetails uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailsProjection→eventsourcing.domain.Eventeventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailsProjection→eventsourcing.domain.Handles
- Direction
- readmodels.studentdetails uses domain, so a change to domain can break readmodels.studentdetails, while a change to readmodels.studentdetails can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: readmodels.studentdetails uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→8 readmodels.studentlist uses readmodels✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in readmodels.studentlist uses a type in readmodels.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.readmodels.studentlist.StudentListProjection→eventsourcing.readmodels.SingleDocumentStoreeventsourcing.readmodels.studentlist.StudentListReadModel→eventsourcing.readmodels.SingleDocumentStore
- Direction
- readmodels.studentlist uses readmodels, so a change to readmodels can break readmodels.studentlist, while a change to readmodels.studentlist can't break readmodels.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: readmodels.studentlist uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→14 readmodels.studentlist uses domain✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in readmodels.studentlist uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.readmodels.studentlist.StudentListProjection→eventsourcing.domain.Eventeventsourcing.readmodels.studentlist.StudentListProjection→eventsourcing.domain.Handles
- Direction
- readmodels.studentlist uses domain, so a change to domain can break readmodels.studentlist, while a change to readmodels.studentlist can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: readmodels.studentlist uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→8 readmodels.trainingclasses uses readmodels✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in readmodels.trainingclasses uses a type in readmodels.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassProjection→eventsourcing.readmodels.DocumentStoreeventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassProjection→eventsourcing.readmodels.SingleDocumentStoreeventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassReadModel→eventsourcing.readmodels.DocumentStoreeventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassReadModel→eventsourcing.readmodels.SingleDocumentStore
- Direction
- readmodels.trainingclasses uses readmodels, so a change to readmodels can break readmodels.trainingclasses, while a change to readmodels.trainingclasses can't break readmodels.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: readmodels.trainingclasses uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→14 readmodels.trainingclasses uses domain✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in readmodels.trainingclasses uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassProjection→eventsourcing.domain.Eventeventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassProjection→eventsourcing.domain.Handles
- Direction
- readmodels.trainingclasses uses domain, so a change to domain can break readmodels.trainingclasses, while a change to readmodels.trainingclasses can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: readmodels.trainingclasses uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→14 api uses domain✕
- Connections
- 13 pairs of types, where a type in api uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.api.CommandDispatcher→eventsourcing.domain.Commandeventsourcing.api.CommandDispatcher→eventsourcing.domain.EnrollStudenteventsourcing.api.CommandDispatcher→eventsourcing.domain.RegisterNewStudenteventsourcing.api.CommandDispatcher→eventsourcing.domain.RegisteredEmailsIndexeventsourcing.api.CommandDispatcher→eventsourcing.domain.ScheduleNewClasseventsourcing.api.CommandDispatcher→eventsourcing.domain.StudentRepositoryeventsourcing.api.CommandDispatcher→eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassRepositoryeventsourcing.api.CommandDispatcher→eventsourcing.domain.UnenrollStudenteventsourcing.api.RegisterNewStudentRequest→eventsourcing.domain.RegisterNewStudenteventsourcing.api.TrainingClassCommandControllerKt→eventsourcing.domain.EnrollStudenteventsourcing.api.TrainingClassCommandControllerKt→eventsourcing.domain.ScheduleNewClasseventsourcing.api.TrainingClassCommandControllerKt→eventsourcing.domain.UnenrollStudenteventsourcing.api.UnhandledCommandException→eventsourcing.domain.Command
- Direction
- api uses domain, so a change to domain can break api, while a change to api can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→21 api uses readmodels.studentdetails✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in api uses a type in readmodels.studentdetails.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.api.StudentReadController→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailseventsourcing.api.StudentReadController→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailsReadModeleventsourcing.api.StudentReadControllerKt→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetails
- Direction
- api uses readmodels.studentdetails, so a change to readmodels.studentdetails can break api, while a change to api can't break readmodels.studentdetails.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→22 api uses readmodels.studentlist✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in api uses a type in readmodels.studentlist.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.api.StudentReadController→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentlist.Studenteventsourcing.api.StudentReadController→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentlist.StudentListReadModel
- Direction
- api uses readmodels.studentlist, so a change to readmodels.studentlist can break api, while a change to api can't break readmodels.studentlist.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→23 api uses readmodels.trainingclasses✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in api uses a type in readmodels.trainingclasses.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.api.TrainingClassReadController→eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClasseventsourcing.api.TrainingClassReadController→eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassDetailseventsourcing.api.TrainingClassReadController→eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassReadModeleventsourcing.api.TrainingClassReadControllerKt→eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassDetails
- Direction
- api uses readmodels.trainingclasses, so a change to readmodels.trainingclasses can break api, while a change to api can't break readmodels.trainingclasses.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: api uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→14 eventstore uses domain✕
- Connections
- 6 pairs of types, where a type in eventstore uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore→eventsourcing.domain.AggregateTypeeventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore→eventsourcing.domain.Eventeventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore→eventsourcing.domain.EventPublishereventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore→eventsourcing.domain.EventStoreeventsourcing.eventstore.InMemoryEventStore→eventsourcing.domain.Eventeventsourcing.eventstore.InMemoryEventStore→eventsourcing.domain.EventPublisher
- Direction
- eventstore uses domain, so a change to domain can break eventstore, while a change to eventstore can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: eventstore uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→19 eventstore uses eventstore.BaseEventStore✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in eventstore uses a type in eventstore.BaseEventStore.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore→eventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore.EventDescriptoreventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore→eventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore.StreamKeyeventsourcing.eventstore.InMemoryEventStore→eventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore.EventDescriptoreventsourcing.eventstore.InMemoryEventStore→eventsourcing.eventstore.BaseEventStore.StreamKey
- Direction
- eventstore uses eventstore.BaseEventStore, so a change to eventstore.BaseEventStore can break eventstore, while a change to eventstore can't break eventstore.BaseEventStore.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: eventstore uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→8 eventsourcing uses readmodels✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in eventsourcing uses a type in readmodels.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.InMemoryDocumentStoreeventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.InMemorySingleDocumentStore
- Direction
- eventsourcing uses readmodels, so a change to readmodels can break eventsourcing, while a change to eventsourcing can't break readmodels.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: eventsourcing uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→14 eventsourcing uses domain✕
- Connections
- 6 pairs of types, where a type in eventsourcing uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.domain.Eventeventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.domain.EventPublishereventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.domain.EventStoreeventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.domain.RegisteredEmailsIndexeventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.domain.StudentRepositoryeventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.domain.TrainingClassRepository
- Direction
- eventsourcing uses domain, so a change to domain can break eventsourcing, while a change to eventsourcing can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: eventsourcing uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→21 eventsourcing uses readmodels.studentdetails✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in eventsourcing uses a type in readmodels.studentdetails.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailseventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailsProjectioneventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentdetails.StudentDetailsReadModel
- Direction
- eventsourcing uses readmodels.studentdetails, so a change to readmodels.studentdetails can break eventsourcing, while a change to eventsourcing can't break readmodels.studentdetails.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: eventsourcing uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→22 eventsourcing uses readmodels.studentlist✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in eventsourcing uses a type in readmodels.studentlist.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentlist.Studenteventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentlist.StudentListProjectioneventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.studentlist.StudentListReadModel
- Direction
- eventsourcing uses readmodels.studentlist, so a change to readmodels.studentlist can break eventsourcing, while a change to eventsourcing can't break readmodels.studentlist.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: eventsourcing uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→23 eventsourcing uses readmodels.trainingclasses✕
- Connections
- 5 pairs of types, where a type in eventsourcing uses a type in readmodels.trainingclasses.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.StudentContactseventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClasseventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassDetailseventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassProjectioneventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.readmodels.trainingclasses.TrainingClassReadModel
- Direction
- eventsourcing uses readmodels.trainingclasses, so a change to readmodels.trainingclasses can break eventsourcing, while a change to eventsourcing can't break readmodels.trainingclasses.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: eventsourcing uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→24 eventsourcing uses api✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in eventsourcing uses a type in api.
- The types involved
eventsourcing.EventSourcingApplication→eventsourcing.api.CommandDispatcher
- Direction
- eventsourcing uses api, so a change to api can break eventsourcing, while a change to eventsourcing can't break api.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: eventsourcing uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Domain Modelling
At a glance — Performance
Roadmap
First, migrate the existing build and test steps to a functioning CI service and remove the obsolete configuration to restore valid pipeline integrity. Next, establish a changelog to track release history and implement observability features, such as health checks and metrics, to improve operational visibility. Then, enforce strict state management by ensuring aggregates can only be constructed in valid states through guarded constructors or factories. Finally, enhance the documentation by adding installation, usage, and contribution guidelines to complement the existing high-level overview.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Port the existing pipeline to a CI service that is still operating — the build and test steps are already specified — and remove the dead configuration and its badge so the repository stops advertising a gate that no longer exists. | +3.6 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +3.6 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry-java or Micrometer) and a health-check endpoint (Spring Boot Actuator's /actuator/health, or a /health route) for operability. | +1.9 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Give each aggregate one way in that can refuse — a guarded constructor, value-object parameters that validate themselves, or a private constructor behind a factory that returns a failure. | +1.1 pts | Medium | Constructible invalid state |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. | +0.8 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +0.8 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Interpolated log message defeats structured logging | +0.3 pts | Medium | Structured logging |
| Resolve the 12 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Commands.kt (2), TrainingClassReadController.kt, TrainingClassCommandController.kt. | +0.3 pts | Medium | Explicit Debt |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/Commands.kt | 7.3 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| build.gradle.kts | 7.9 | Near-clean | Platform End-of-Life: End-of-life framework: Spring Boot 2 |
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/api/TrainingClassReadController.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/api/TrainingClassCommandController.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/api/StudentReadController.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/api/StudentCommandController.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/Student.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/RegisteredEmailsIndex.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/Events.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/readmodels/studentdetails/StudentDetailsReadModel.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/readmodels/trainingclasses/TrainingClassProjection.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/test/kotlin/eventsourcing/end2end/BaseE2EJourneyTest.kt | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
How the grades work
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 56 of 59 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — 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.
What we checked — 59 dimensions across the health lenses
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 18 of 22 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy | 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 |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.kt) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.kt) and this repository declares a JVM test suite (repository root, Gradle), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 1 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 4 dependency(ies) and leaving 0 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 48 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict.
- D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Too few commits to judge knowledge freshness (48 commit(s) sampled).
- AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via ToolchainServer (.). the service did not build — `sh ./gradlew --no-daemon -q classes` exited 1: .java:57) at org.codehaus.groovy.vmplugin.VMPluginFactory.<clinit>(VMPluginFactory.java:39) ... 125 more FAILURE: Build failed with an exception. * What went wrong: Could not initialize class org.…; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because build.gradle.kts applies the Spring Boot plugin and declares spring-boot-starter-web).
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- DM9 Scattered domain decisions — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not measured — scattered-decision detection needs expression-level symbol resolution: a comparison operand bound to the member it judges (arm one) and a construction bound to the type it produces (arm two). A Roslyn compilation carries both; arm two alone also runs on any frontend that declares whether a construction is produced or passed, and this target loaded neither.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Kotlin is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Kotlin is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- 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.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- 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.
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 13 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window. Repeated repair below the complexity floor: src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/readmodels/trainingclasses/TrainingClassProjection.kt (5 of 8 changes were fixes); src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/EventSourcedRepository.kt (3 of 5 changes were fixes)
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with TrainingClassProjection.kt, EventSourcedRepository.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
D17 · Explicit Debt
12 deducted task-comment markers across 1086 LoC (0.4/KLoC) → score 9.2. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
What to do
- Resolve the 12 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Commands.kt (2), TrainingClassReadController.kt, TrainingClassCommandController.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README is a well-written documentation of the project as a whole: it states what the project does (demonstrates an event-sourcing/CQRS class management system loosely inspired by Greg Young's SimpleCQRS), explains the domain and commands, describes the API approach with business invariants, and gives a high-level architecture diagram. It is well written for an overview document but lacks installation/build/usage guidance and contribution notes.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. — The repository's root README is a well-written documentation of the project as a whole: it states what the project does (demonstrates an event-sourcing/CQRS class management system loosely inspired by Greg Young's SimpleCQRS), explains the domain and commands, describes the API approach with business invariants, and gives a high-level architecture diagram. It is well written for an overview document but lacks installation/build/usage guidance and contribution notes.
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 build units (Gradle) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `gradlew` (lines 144–145, line 146, line 147, …) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 1 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 6 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 End-of-life framework finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with build.gradle.kts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
AX10 · Code composition
AX2 · Stateful singletons
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
DM10 · One transaction, one aggregate
DM11 · Constructible invalid state
- `Student`'s public constructor takes `id` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `Student` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/Student.kt:15
- `TrainingClass`'s public constructor takes `id` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `TrainingClass` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/TrainingClass.kt:15
What to do
- Give each aggregate one way in that can refuse — a guarded constructor, value-object parameters that validate themselves, or a private constructor behind a factory that returns a failure.
DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
DM5 · Encapsulated state
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
DM7 · Repository granularity
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
P1 · CI/CD gates
- The pipeline is well-formed, but the only CI definition is `.travis.yml`, and its `README.md` build badge still points at `travis-ci.org` — a service shut down in June 2021. No other CI is configured in this repository, so nothing has been building or testing changes here since that shutdown — the steps below describe a gate that is not running. Porting it is mostly mechanical: the build and test commands already written here are what a replacement pipeline would run.
What to do
- Port the existing pipeline to a CI service that is still operating — the build and test steps are already specified — and remove the dead configuration and its badge so the repository stops advertising a gate that no longer exists.
P2 · Observability
What to do
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry-java or Micrometer) and a health-check endpoint (Spring Boot Actuator's /actuator/health, or a /health route) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 273 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X22 · Contradicted release guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X3 · Exception handling
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
X4 · Structured logging
- `debug` at line 19 is handed a message assembled at the call — a string template with `$…` values in it, a concatenation or `String.format` — through SLF4J, log4j 2 or kotlin-logging, so the logger receives one finished string: the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, every occurrence reads as a different message, and the string is built even when the level is filtered out. Pass a constant pattern and the values beside it instead: `log.debug("Order {} moved to {}", orderId, status)`, which keeps the pattern and its arguments apart on the event for a structured encoder (logstash-logback-encoder, log4j 2's JsonTemplateLayout, OpenTelemetry), or with kotlin-logging `logger.atInfo { message = "Order moved"; payload = mapOf("order_id" to orderId, "status" to status) }`. An exception goes last, as the throwable argument, not into the text. — src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/EventSourcedRepository.kt:19
What to do
- Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 87% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 69% | Strong | Solid. |
| Maturity | 83% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Readiness | 42% | Adequate — gated by P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 95% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Domain Modelling | 81% | Adequate — gated by DM11 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Performance | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not evidenced — 2 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 69 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the service did not build — `sh ./gradlew --no-daemon -q classes` exited 1: .java:57) at org.codehaus.groovy.vmplugin.VMPluginFactory.<clinit>(VMPluginFactory.java:39) ... 125 more FAILURE: Build failed with an exception. * What went wrong: Could not initialize class org.…; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because build.gradle.kts applies the Spring Boot plugin and declares spring-boot-starter-web) This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named column (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone_number, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
- D10 Test Quality — ~1591 lines of test source are present (.kt) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .kt suite was found but not re-run
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 1 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 4 dependency(ies) and leaving 0 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 4 declared JVM dependency coordinate(s) were read from its 1 Maven/Gradle manifest(s), but Maven Central could not be asked for the licence of 4 of them (HTTP 429 Too Many Requests from https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/jetbrains/kotlinx/kotlinx-coroutines-core/1.3.0-RC/kotlinx-coroutines-core-1.3.0-RC.pom), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Aggregate roots were found in only one source directory (domain), which is a layered codebase, not two contexts. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.kt), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — too few commits to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
- D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this Gradle build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.kt) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- DM9 Scattered domain decisions — not measured — scattered-decision detection needs expression-level symbol resolution: a comparison operand bound to the member it judges (arm one) and a construction bound to the type it produces (arm two). A Roslyn compilation carries both; arm two alone also runs on any frontend that declares whether a construction is produced or passed, and this target loaded neither
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events))
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the JVM source (service entry point: src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/Application.kt:21 (@SpringBootApplication))
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `@Benchmark` in a Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a pom.xml, Gradle or sbt build, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Kotlin code has 1,371 production line(s), 0 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Kotlin was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller (Ktor, OkHttp's newCall or a URL stream, from a suspend function) — a Kotlin request outside a suspend function has no caller's cancellation to honour
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Serious — 18 finding(s)
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/api/TrainingClassReadController.kt:15
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/api/TrainingClassCommandController.kt:16
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/api/StudentReadController.kt:16
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/api/StudentCommandController.kt:13
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/Student.kt:50
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/RegisteredEmailsIndex.kt:14
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/Events.kt:11
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/Commands.kt:24
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/Commands.kt:30
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/readmodels/studentdetails/StudentDetailsReadModel.kt:18
- TodoComment src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/readmodels/trainingclasses/TrainingClassProjection.kt:11
- TodoComment src/test/kotlin/eventsourcing/end2end/BaseE2EJourneyTest.kt:26
- Repeated repair: src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/readmodels/trainingclasses/TrainingClassProjection.kt src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/readmodels/trainingclasses/TrainingClassProjection.kt:22
- Repeated repair: src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/EventSourcedRepository.kt src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/EventSourcedRepository.kt:18
- Constructible in an invalid state: Student src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/Student.kt:15
- Constructible in an invalid state: TrainingClass src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/TrainingClass.kt:15
- End-of-life framework: Spring Boot 2 build.gradle.kts:1
- CI pipeline targets a decommissioned service
Minor — 4 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- No SAST
- No changelog
- Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/main/kotlin/eventsourcing/domain/EventSourcedRepository.kt:19
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-09957e70b9154a3787a34bf8f2bfcca0/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-09957e70b9154a3787a34bf8f2bfcca0/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 0 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here) | — | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here) | — | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |