nitin27may/clean-architecture-docker-dotnet-angular

Executive summary

nitin27may/clean-architecture-docker-dotnet-angular scores 48 out of 100 and is rated Weak, while six of its seven lenses score higher still: Performance at 100, rated Exemplary, Architecture at 85, rated Strong, and Code Health at 70, Accessibility at 57 and Security and Compliance and Maturity at 56, all rated Adequate.

The score is lower than those six because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 35 and is rated Weak. Its REDACTED Scanning dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning and to resolve the 4 Outdated (npm) finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 48 to about 59.

98 findings are critical: 31 in Forms & labels, 28 in Static Analysis (SAST), 13 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, 12 in Secrets (history), seven in IaC & Container Security, five in Explicit Debt and two in REDACTED Scanning.

Watchdog couldn't measure 4 dimensions in this code, among them Test Reliability, Documentation Quality and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 8,538 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €11,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 70 Adequate Architecture 85 Strong Maturity 56 Adequate, capped by Documentation accuracy Production Readiness 35 Weak, capped by REDACTED Scanning, Tooling, Security & performance tooling and DR & Backup Security and Compliance 56 Adequate, capped by Secrets (history), Static Analysis (SAST), Dependency Vulnerabilities and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Accessibility 57 Adequate Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

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

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Production Readiness 35 · counts for 46%Security and Compliance 56 · counts for 25%Maturity 56 · counts for 14%Accessibility 57 · counts for 8%Code Health 70 · counts for 4%Architecture 85 · counts for 2%Performance 100 · counts for 1%

If Production Readiness rose from 35 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 48 to about 59.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Business logic 21%Supporting code 76%Tests 4%

Rebuild cost: about €11,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€3,800 to €19,000, for 63 to 199 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	High, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 48. 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	Small: 8,538 lines of product code
Comment lines	The estimate prices 8,325 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 8,538 lines but aren't priced as work.

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

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 11 points · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning

Resolve the 4 Outdated (npm) finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 8 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED (3).

Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €11,000 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 35 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 11 points for low effort, because it clears the 2 REDACTED Scanning findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

87 modules, with 58 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 47 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 Contact.Application	2 Contact.Application.UseCases.ContactPerson	3 Contact.Application.UseCases.Operations	4 Contact.Application.UseCases.Pages	5 Contact.Application.UseCases.Permissions	6 Contact.Application.UseCases.RolePermissions	7 Contact.Application.UseCases.Roles	8 Contact.Domain.Entities	9 Contact.Domain.Mappings	10 Contact.Infrastructure	11 frontend.src.app.@core.components.validation.control-error-anchor_directive	12 frontend.src.app.@core.components.validation.form-action_directive	13 frontend.src.app.@core.models.operation_interface	14 frontend.src.app.@core.models.page_interface	15 frontend.src.app.@core.models.permission_interface	16 frontend.src.app.@core.models.role_interface	17 frontend.src.app.@core.models.user_interface	18 Contact.Application.UseCases.Users	19 Contact.Domain.Interfaces	20 Contact.Infrastructure.Persistence.Helper	34 Contact.Application.Interfaces	35 Contact.Application.Mapping
1 Contact.Application
2 Contact.Application.UseCases.ContactPerson
3 Contact.Application.UseCases.Operations
4 Contact.Application.UseCases.Pages
5 Contact.Application.UseCases.Permissions
6 Contact.Application.UseCases.RolePermissions
7 Contact.Application.UseCases.Roles
8 Contact.Domain.Entities
9 Contact.Domain.Mappings
10 Contact.Infrastructure
11 frontend.src.app.@core.components.validation.control-error-anchor_directive
12 frontend.src.app.@core.components.validation.form-action_directive
13 frontend.src.app.@core.models.operation_interface
14 frontend.src.app.@core.models.page_interface
15 frontend.src.app.@core.models.permission_interface
16 frontend.src.app.@core.models.role_interface
17 frontend.src.app.@core.models.user_interface
18 Contact.Application.UseCases.Users						3	1
19 Contact.Domain.Interfaces								7	1
20 Contact.Infrastructure.Persistence.Helper										1
21 frontend.src.app.@core.components.validation.control-error_directive											1	1
22 frontend.src.app.@core.services.auth-state_service																	1
23 frontend.src.app.@core.services.role-permission-mapping_service															2
24 frontend.src.app.@core.services.user_service																	1
25 frontend.src.app.feature.admin.operations.operation_service													1
26 frontend.src.app.feature.admin.operations.operations_component													1
27 frontend.src.app.feature.admin.pages.page_service														1
28 frontend.src.app.feature.admin.pages.pages_component														1
29 frontend.src.app.feature.admin.role-permission-mapping.role-permission-mapping_component															1
30 frontend.src.app.feature.admin.roles.role_service																1
31 frontend.src.app.feature.admin.roles.roles_component																1
32 frontend.src.app.feature.admin.user-roles.user-role_service																	1
33 frontend.src.app.feature.admin.users.users_component																	1
34 Contact.Application.Interfaces					1	3		2										10	1
35 Contact.Application.Mapping		3	3	3	3	6	3	10	3									6
36 Contact.Infrastructure.ExternalServices										1									1
37 Contact.Api.Controllers		2	2	2		1	2											7			12
38 Contact.Application.Services	1				2	3		8										10	17		19	8
39 Contact.Infrastructure.Persistence																				1	1
40 Contact.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories								9	2	1									10	11	1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 70% · Adequate ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.6 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 9.3 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.3 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 7.7 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 9.9 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 8.0 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 9.9 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 8.0 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 R3 · React / TS Large Files 10.0 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 8.2 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.9

The Bad

X4 · Repo Structured logging 6.5

The Ugly

X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.0

At a glance — Architecture · 85% · Strong ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 9.8 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 10.0

The Bad

D7 · .NET / C# Architectural Integrity 6.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 5.1

At a glance — Maturity · 56% · Adequate · gated by M4 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 9.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 9.2 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 9.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 7.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0

The Ugly

M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 35% · Weak · gated by D13, R6, P3, P5 ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P2 · Repo Observability 9.4 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 10.0 R5 · React / TS Dependency Freshness 8.2 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 5.5 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

D13 · .NET / C# REDACTED Scanning 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 3.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0 R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 4.3 R6 · React / TS Tooling 3.4

At a glance — Security · 56% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29, D30, D36 ·

The Good

D37 · .NET / C# Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0

The Bad

D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 6.9 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 6.0

The Ugly

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 0.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 2.8 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0 D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0 C1 · Repo Data Protection 4.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 3.5

At a glance — Accessibility · 57% · Adequate ·

The Good

AC3 · Repo Page structure 10.0 AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 10.0

The Ugly

AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 4.3 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 4.7 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2025 — Injection	30	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	23	High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	17	High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	15	High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the two leaked secrets in REDACTED and REDACTED, then update the four outdated npm dependencies and address the three deprecated packages. Establish a robust disaster recovery strategy by codifying backups and geo-recovery in infrastructure as code, while clearly documenting recovery time and point objectives. Finally, integrate a static analysis security testing step into the continuous integration pipeline to automatically block security regressions.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.	+11.4 pts	Low	REDACTED Scanning
Resolve the 4 Outdated (npm) finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+8.2 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED (3).	+6.2 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.	+5.6 pts	Medium	DR & Backup
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+2.1 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Add eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.	+1.7 pts	Medium	Tooling
Reconcile the README with reality: README.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22; docs/aspire-guide.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22; docs/development-guide.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22; docs/development-guide.md changes into `backend/src`, but no such folder exists; docs/development-guide.md runs `dotnet run --project Contact.Api` from `docs/` or the repository root, but `Contact.Api` is not there: the project is `backend/Contact.Api`.	+1.7 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Resolve the 5 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with RolePermissionService.cs (3), ActivityLogService.cs, UserRepository.cs.	+0.7 pts	Low	Explicit Debt

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 41 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 10% slop · 61% mixed · 29% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.4	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.4	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.5	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.5	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
backend/Contact.Application/Services/RolePermissionService.cs	5.8	Mixed	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/UserRepository.cs	6.1	Mixed	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
REDACTED	6.2	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): High secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED

How the grades work

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

Critical — 98

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

Serious — 154

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

Minor — 131

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

Could not be resolved — 7

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. 89 of 93 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 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 93 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D20D21D24D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D37D39D43D44AC2AC3AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6C1C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P6P7PF3R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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, 281 of 383 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
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a164bb-ff07-7b8d-b0e4-147f6199b9c4.

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.

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 (.ts) and the reliability runner does support this ecosystem — it drives jest, vitest, mocha and egg-bin — but every JavaScript/TypeScript test package this repository declares runs its suite in a real browser, which the re-runner has no way to launch. `frontend` declares `karma` and its `scripts.test` is `ng test`. So flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's browser-driven test support, not a missing .ts runner and not a finding about this repository.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares package.json, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its NuGet package dependencies. Nothing was read about its npm dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
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 314 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.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 6 deducted marker(s) and the 1.2/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .ts (4,800 lines, 57% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
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. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PagesController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PermissionsController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolePermissionMappingController.cs`, … (+26 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
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 AspireAppHost (REDACTED). the Aspire AppHost did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time (or only the dashboard) — no runtime evidence.
M3 Folder & project structure — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Whether the tests sit apart from production code is not visible here, because the suite is not in a form this pass reads. The test-separation credit is granted rather than withheld: this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about the repository's tests. You can widen what we reach: keep the test surface somewhere a reader can find it without opening a binary — an exported/checked-in test source tree beside the production code makes the suite reviewable, diffable and discoverable by tooling.
X2 Cancellation propagation — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 68 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 108.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
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 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
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.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
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

LLM-set scores this run (4): D20, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.6 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit at 19.

ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit (cyclomatic 19)frontend/src/app/@core/components/validation/control-error.directive.ts:99

MenuService.getMenuItems (cyclomatic 16)frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:35

What to do

Bring the 2 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit (cyclomatic 19), MenuService.getMenuItems (cyclomatic 16). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 2 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.6 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.3 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

MenuService.getMenuItems (cognitive 24)frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:35

ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit (cognitive 21)frontend/src/app/@core/components/validation/control-error.directive.ts:99

What to do

Bring the 2 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with MenuService.getMenuItems (cognitive 24), ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit (cognitive 21). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 2 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.4 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
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 Duplication9.3 / 10Stronggated by 9 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

8 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted. Measured on part of this repository only: .ts (57% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserResponse.cs:7

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:32

Duplicated block (21 lines × 3)backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:55

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPersonValidator.cs:9

Duplicated block (12 lines × 4)backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:40

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with UserResponse.cs, UserRepository.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DapperHelper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DapperHelper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.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 14 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D7 · Architectural Integrity6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the code respects its intended layering / architecture rules.

Method: Enforcement rung (Prevented/Verified/Documented) per checkable ADR via Roslyn, plus dependency cycles via the engine shared with D5/AX3. Deterministic, exact.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

No mechanizable ADR was identified, so enforcement is not measured. Cycles found: 0.

What to do

Enforce Architectural Integrity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d7_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

6 test methods: 6 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 6 `it`/`test` case(s) across 6 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 6 tests.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene5.5 / 10Adequate✓ 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 5.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

20 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages. Those are the NuGet packages; this repository's npm dependencies were read too — 64 outdated of 136 package(s) across 1 lockfile(s).

Deprecated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore · ×3backend/Contact.Application/Contact.Application.csproj:11

Outdated (npm): content-disposition · ×4

Deprecated: glob · ×3REDACTED:5939

Outdated (npm): @alloc/quick-lru · ×60

Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi · ×20

What to do

Resolve the 4 Outdated (npm) finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with package.json (2), Contact.Application.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-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 · REDACTED Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Enforce REDACTED Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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 223 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 22 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 201 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's NuGet package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares package.json, and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ 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?

D17 · Explicit Debt7.7 / 10Adequategated by 5 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 deducted debt markers + 5 dead symbols across 3649 LoC in the .NET projects (1.2/KLoC) → score 7.7. Measured on the .NET source only: .ts (57% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).

WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×5backend/Contact.Application/Services/ActivityLogService.cs:11

Dead code: Find · ×5backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/GenericRepository.cs:23

CommentedOutCodeaspire/ServiceDefaults/Extensions.cs:91

What to do

Resolve the 5 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with RolePermissionService.cs (3), ActivityLogService.cs, UserRepository.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 Dead code finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with IRoleRepository.cs (2), GenericRepository.cs, IRolePermissionService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Extensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR QualityExemplary◐ 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 Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Evaluated 2 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 9.0/10 (consistently complete and clear). 0 flagged with a specific gap.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ 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.

The concept of retrieving role permission mappings is named differently in the interface (`GetRolePermissionMappingsAsync`) and the service implementation (`GetRolePermissionMappingByRoleIdAsync`). The interface uses plural 'Mappings' and a generic name, while the service uses singular 'Mapping' and specifies 'ByRoleId'. This inconsistency in number and specificity can be confusing.

✓ 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?

D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ 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 Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

42 valuable / 0 redundant across 126 sampled comments.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.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 7 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

12 finding(s): 0 critical, 12 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 8 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

30 finding(s): 0 critical, 28 high, 1 medium, 1 low. 21 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 32 file(s) — `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs` (line 12), `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs` (line 10), `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PagesController.cs` (line 10), `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PermissionsController.cs` (line 8), `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolePermissionMappingController.cs` (lines 10–13, line 14), … (+27 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 28 of those file(s) — `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PagesController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PermissionsController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolePermissionMappingController.cs`, … (+23 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them.

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 18 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 3 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

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

18 finding(s): 2 critical, 11 high, 5 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 11 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (10), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-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 Security6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

17 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 7 medium, 3 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 7 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Resolve the 7 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 15 of the 129 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

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

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D39 · IL Efficiency9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 260 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetbackend/Contact.Application/Mapping/ObjectMapper.cs:36

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 7 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC2 · Forms & labels4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. (×15) — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.html:25, frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.html:31, frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.html:73, …
This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×16) — frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:21, frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:27, frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:33, …

What to do

Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety4.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

`.animate-slide-up` moves (`animation: slideUp 0.5s ease-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — frontend/src/app/styles/custom.scss:7
`:host .animate-fade-in` moves (`animation: fadeIn 0.8s ease-in-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — frontend/src/app/feature/user/home/home.component.scss:23
`.mat-icon` moves (`transition: transform 0.3s ease`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.scss:42
`mat-sidenav-content` moves (`transition: margin-left 300ms ease-in-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.scss:20
`mat-sidenav` moves (`transition: transform 300ms ease-in-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.scss:25
`:host *` moves (`transition-property: width, height, opacity, transform, background-color`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/sidenav-header/sidenav-header.component.ts:38

What to do

Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.

No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (@angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules)) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 21 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add @angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules), then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 composition5.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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?

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

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

`IUserService` declares 16 members: `Create`, `Add`, `Delete`, `Update`, `FindByID`, `CheckUniqueUsers`, `FindAll`, `Authenticate`, `GetUserId`, `GetUserRolesAsync`, `ChangePassword`, `ForgotPassword`, `ResetPassword`, `GetUserWithPermissionsAsync`, `UpdateUserRoles`, `GetUserWithRolesAsync`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — backend/Contact.Application/Interfaces/IUserService.cs:10

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

C1 · Data Protection4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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 & stubs8.0 / 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, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

`GetUserRolesAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — backend/Contact.Application/Services/UserService.cs:214
`GenerateLink` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — backend/Contact.Application/Services/UserService.cs:375
A placeholder e-mail address ("unknown@example.com") is still in shipped code — its domain is reserved for documentation, so anything sent here is undeliverable by construction. Replace it with the real address, or take it from configuration. — backend/Contact.Api/Core/Middleware/ActivityLoggingMiddleware.cs:28
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×5) — backend/Contact.Application/Services/PermissionService.cs:30, backend/Contact.Application/Services/PermissionService.cs:31, backend/Contact.Application/Services/PermissionService.cs:36, …

What to do

Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a README to the 7 of 7 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

Grow the ADR log (currently 2) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy0.0 / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

README.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:81
docs/aspire-guide.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/aspire-guide.md:36
docs/development-guide.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/development-guide.md:23
docs/development-guide.md changes into `backend/src`, but no such folder exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/development-guide.md:146
docs/development-guide.md runs `dotnet run --project Contact.Api` from `docs/` or the repository root, but `Contact.Api` is not there: the project is `backend/Contact.Api`. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/development-guide.md:160
docs/docker-guide.md names `backend/src/Dockerfile`, but no file or folder `backend/src/Dockerfile` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/docker-guide.md:84
docs/docker-guide.md names `backend/scripts/seed-data.sql`, but no file or folder `backend/scripts/seed-data.sql` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/docker-guide.md:430
docs/index.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/index.md:53

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22; docs/aspire-guide.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22; docs/development-guide.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22; docs/development-guide.md changes into `backend/src`, but no such folder exists; docs/development-guide.md runs `dotnet run --project Contact.Api` from `docs/` or the repository root, but `Contact.Api` is not there: the project is `backend/Contact.Api`.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 4/5 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 5, 2 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5972 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: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 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.

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

What to do

Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

What to do

Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R10 · Code Duplication8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

10 duplicated blocks under frontend/src/app/feature/admin/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories activity-log, operations, pages, role-permission-mapping, roles, user-roles (+1 more sibling(s) not listed) — 9 of them are reported below, and 1 is counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 10 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 10 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 10 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:50
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:50 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/pages.component.ts:50 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:50
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operation.service.ts:7 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/page.service.ts:7 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/role.service.ts:7 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operation.service.ts:7
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:118 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:144 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 136 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:118
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:40 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:28 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:28 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:30 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:40
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:26 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/pages.component.ts:26 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:32 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:32 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:26
frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:185 · frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:229 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:185
frontend/src/app/@core/layout/header/header.component.ts:29 · frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.ts:35 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 70 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/header/header.component.ts:29
frontend/src/app/@core/guards/auth.guard.ts:54 · frontend/src/app/@core/guards/auth.guard.ts:94 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 86 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — frontend/src/app/@core/guards/auth.guard.ts:54
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:83 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:69 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:83
frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.ts:101 · frontend/src/app/feature/user/home/home.component.ts:83 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.ts:101
frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:148 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:162 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:148
frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.ts:174 · frontend/src/app/feature/user/register/register.component.ts:120 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 57 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.ts:174
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.ts:121 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.ts:144 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:215 — the 3 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.ts:121
frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:96 · frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:118 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:96
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:67 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:57 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:63 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:67
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:60 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:80 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:66 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:60
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:107 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:120 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:107
frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-details/contact-details.component.ts:52 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:76 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:87 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:151 · +1 more site(s) not listed — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-details/contact-details.component.ts:52
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:141 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:110 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:123 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:151 — the 4 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:141
frontend/src/app/@core/services/role-permission-mapping.service.ts:11 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operation.service.ts:7 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/page.service.ts:7 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/role.service.ts:7 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend/src/app/@core/services/role-permission-mapping.service.ts:11
frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:121 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:145 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:121
frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:74 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:85 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:74

What to do

Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

ngOnInit has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 18; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — frontend/src/app/@core/components/validation/control-error.directive.ts:99

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R4 · Test Coverage4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×34) — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:1, frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.ts:1, frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.ts:1, …

What to do

Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).

Do you agree with this assessment?

R5 · Dependency Freshness8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).

Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.

What to do

Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R6 · Tooling3.4 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.

What to do

Add eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

Unreachable from the 3 application, 4 tooling and 6 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
no import path from any entry point (3 application, 4 tooling, 6 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make (×5) — frontend/src/server.ts, frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/sidenav-header/sidenav-header.component.ts, frontend/src/app/feature/admin/admin.module.ts, …
Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in frontend/src/app/@core/guards/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in frontend/src/app/@core/guards/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. (×2) — frontend/src/app/@core/guards/auth.guard.ts:94, frontend/src/app/@core/guards/ensure-module-loaded-once.guard.ts:1
Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in frontend/src/app/@core/interceptors/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in frontend/src/app/@core/interceptors/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. — frontend/src/app/@core/interceptors/error.interceptor.ts:8
Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×2) — frontend/src/app/@core/models/permission.interface.ts:1, frontend/src/app/@core/models/permission.interface.ts:55
Nothing in its class reads or assigns this private field (for a constructor parameter property: it is stored and never read), and no string key or test reaches it by name. Remove it, or use it where it was meant to take effect. (×2) — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:28, frontend/src/app/@core/services/theme.service.ts:49
This top-level declaration is not exported and its name occurs nowhere else in its module — not called, read, typed against, re-exported or named by a string. Nothing outside the module can reach a non-exported binding, so this is the whole search: remove it, or use it. — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/header/header.component.ts:12

What to do

Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R8 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

This code fixes ASP.NET Identity V2 (PBKDF2-SHA-1) at 1,000 iterations. A key-derivation function's only defence is the cost of ONE guess, and that cost is this number — the algorithm choice does not set it. Current OWASP guidance is 1,300,000 PBKDF2 iterations with HMAC-SHA1, 600,000 with SHA-256 and 210,000 with SHA-512; scrypt at N=2^17, r=8, p=1 (or an equivalent N·r·p product); Argon2id at 19 MiB of memory and 2 iterations (or an equivalent row); bcrypt at a work factor of at least 10. This figure divides the attacker's work by a factor of tens or hundreds against the same stolen hash, on hardware they already own. Where what is derived is short or low-entropy — a PIN, a numeric parental code, a four-character token — the whole keyspace falls in the time this parameter buys, and no salt or constant-time comparison changes that. Raise the count to the current published figure for the PRF you use, measure it on the slowest hardware that must run it (a target of roughly 100 ms per derivation is the usual budget), and read the value from configuration so a deployment can raise it again without a rebuild. Where the derived value must interoperate with a format someone else fixed, the count cannot move — derive a SEPARATE value for anything you own rather than inheriting the external format's price. — backend/Contact.Application/Services/UserService.cs:391
`RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path. — backend/Contact.Api/Program.cs:23
None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves. — backend/Contact.Api/Program.cs:11

What to do

Raise the cost parameter to current guidance — PBKDF2 at 1,300,000 (HMAC-SHA1), 600,000 (SHA-256) or 210,000 (SHA-512) iterations; scrypt at N=2^17, r=8, p=1; bcrypt at a work factor of 10 or more — or move to a memory-hard KDF (Argon2id, scrypt) where the platform offers one. Read the parameter from configuration and tune it to roughly 100 ms per derivation on the slowest hardware that must run it, so the price can be raised again without shipping new code.
Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy first, then Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options and a frame policy) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 0/107 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×38) — backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs:17, backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs:26, backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs:38, …
No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `context.RequestAborted` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `context.RequestAborted` on, or take a CancellationToken. — backend/Contact.Api/Core/Middleware/ExceptionMiddleware.cs:20

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

`body` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the text of an element through an HTML e-mail body with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. Encode it for HTML at this site, render it through the framework's escaping output, or sanitise it if it must stay markup. — backend/Contact.Infrastructure/ExternalServices/EmailService.cs:27

What to do

Each finding names the expression, the attribute it lands in and the line. Confirm the value's origin from the read this analyzer traced, then escape it at the sink or validate it against the shape the attribute accepts before interpolating.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging6.5 / 10Adequate✓ 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. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

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)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. — backend/Contact.Api/Core/Middleware/ExceptionMiddleware.cs:34

What to do

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

~0.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 3 suppression(s) across the 18353 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 10 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (18%; ≈20% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 45 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC2 · Forms & labels	1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness	4.1.2	Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety	1.4.3, 2.4.7	Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 45 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.1.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

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	70%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.
Architecture	85%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	56%	Adequate — gated by M4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	35%	Weak — gated by D13, R6, P3, P5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	56%	Adequate — gated by D28, D29, D30, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility	57%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 3 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.

Not included — 33 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 image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
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 Aspire AppHost did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time (or only the dashboard) — no runtime evidence 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.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — no browser-driven test runner (karma)
D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .ts, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — small single-context codebase (3,649 production LoC in the .NET projects) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size 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. 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"]`.
D25 ADR Conformance — none of 2 ADRs are conformance-checkable — unverifiable.
D27 Navigability — D27 reads resolved call sites in the languages it reads only — this repository's production source is .ts, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 31 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
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.
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the .NET half could not be measured — the repository wires up no coverage collector for `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` to use; the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — the JavaScript/TypeScript suite(s) run through a browser-driven runner the coverage collector does not drive — frontend/ (karma) — a gap in the analyzer, not something this repository is missing. This repository's production source spans both ecosystems, and no partial figure is published as if it were the whole: coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer; 8 repository port(s) loading or saving an aggregate/entity
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
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'.
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 98 finding(s)

AC2 · Forms & labels · <input> without a programmatic label · ×29

<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.html:25 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.html:31 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.html:73 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.html:25 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/pages.component.html:25 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/pages.component.html:33 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.html:25 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.html:26 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.html:35 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.html:44 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.html:53 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.html:62 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:21 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:27 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:33 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:39 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:45 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:53 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.html:59 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-list/contact-list.component.html:18 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/user/login/login.component.html:18 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/user/login/login.component.html:24 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.html:36 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.html:45 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
<input> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.html:54 — This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it.
+ 4 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×11

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×8

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×7

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D17 · Explicit Debt · WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×5

WriteOnlyPrivateField backend/Contact.Application/Services/ActivityLogService.cs:11 — private ILogger<ActivityLogService> _logger — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField backend/Contact.Application/Services/RolePermissionService.cs:13 — private IRoleRepository _roleRepository — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField backend/Contact.Application/Services/RolePermissionService.cs:15 — private IOperationRepository _operationRepository — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField backend/Contact.Application/Services/RolePermissionService.cs:16 — private IPageRepository _pageRepository — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/UserRepository.cs:14 — private AppSettings _appSettings — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AC2 · Forms & labels · <textarea> without a programmatic label · ×2

<textarea> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.html:33 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<textarea> without a programmatic label frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.html:33 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.

D13 · REDACTED Scanning · Leaked secret · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 154 finding(s)

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×39

Async method without CancellationToken: Add backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs:17 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Update backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs:26 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Delete backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs:38 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetById backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs:47 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetAll backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs:56 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: AddOperation backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs:15 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateOperation backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs:21 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetOperations backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteOperation backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs:36 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: AddPage backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PagesController.cs:15 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: UpdatePage backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PagesController.cs:21 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetPages backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PagesController.cs:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: DeletePage backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PagesController.cs:36 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetRoles backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolePermissionMappingController.cs:21 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetRolePermissionMapping backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolePermissionMappingController.cs:41 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: SaveRolePermissionMapping backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolePermissionMappingController.cs:64 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: AddRole backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolesController.cs:16 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateRole backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolesController.cs:22 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetRoles backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolesController.cs:31 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteRole backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolesController.cs:37 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetUserWithRoles backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/UserRolesController.cs:16 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateUserRoles backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/UserRolesController.cs:25 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Register REDACTED:15 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Create REDACTED:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetCurrentUser REDACTED:45 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
+ 14 more in this group — see findings.md.

R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×34

No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/@core/components/skeleton/skeleton.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/@core/components/confirm-dialog/confirm-dialog.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/@core/guards/auth.guard.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/user/login/login.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/user/home/home.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/pages.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/@core/components/page-header/page-header.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/@core/components/empty-state/empty-state.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/server.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/admin.routes.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/sidenav-header/sidenav-header.component.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/admin.module.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/@core/services/role-permission-mapping.service.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact.routes.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/@core/guards/permission.guard.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/@core/interceptors/error.interceptor.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/user/user.routes.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operation.service.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
+ 9 more in this group — see findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×7

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard · ×6

Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard frontend/src/app/styles/custom.scss:7 — `.animate-slide-up` moves (`animation: slideUp 0.5s ease-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard frontend/src/app/feature/user/home/home.component.scss:23 — `:host .animate-fade-in` moves (`animation: fadeIn 0.8s ease-in-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.scss:42 — `.mat-icon` moves (`transition: transform 0.3s ease`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.scss:20 — `mat-sidenav-content` moves (`transition: margin-left 300ms ease-in-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.scss:25 — `mat-sidenav` moves (`transition: transform 300ms ease-in-out`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/sidenav-header/sidenav-header.component.ts:38 — `:host *` moves (`transition-property: width, height, opacity, transform, background-color`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×5

Dead code: Find backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/GenericRepository.cs:23 — Method Find — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Contact.Infrastructure, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: AssignPermissionsToRoleAsync backend/Contact.Application/Interfaces/IRolePermissionService.cs:9 — Method AssignPermissionsToRoleAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Contact.Application, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: DeleteRole backend/Contact.Domain/Interfaces/IRoleRepository.cs:9 — Method DeleteRole — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Contact.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetRoleById backend/Contact.Domain/Interfaces/IRoleRepository.cs:10 — Method GetRoleById — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Contact.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: AddUser backend/Contact.Domain/Interfaces/IUserRepository.cs:8 — Method AddUser — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Contact.Domain, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×3

Deprecated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore backend/Contact.Application/Contact.Application.csproj:11 — FluentValidation.AspNetCore 11.3.1 — Legacy
Deprecated: @angular/animations frontend/package.json:16 — @angular/animations 22.1.5, declared in frontend/package.json, is marked deprecated by its publisher: "@angular/animations is deprecated. Use `animate.enter` and `animate.leave` instead. For more information see: https://v22.angular.dev/guide/animations.". Replace it with the package or version that message names, or record why this one must stay.
Deprecated: @angular/platform-browser-dynamic frontend/package.json:24 — @angular/platform-browser-dynamic 22.1.3, declared in frontend/package.json, is marked deprecated by its publisher: "@angular/platform-browser-dynamic is deprecated. Use `@angular/platform-browser` instead.". Replace it with the package or version that message names, or record why this one must stay.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserResponse.cs:7 — backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserResponse.cs:7-12 | backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserWithRolesResponse.cs:8-13 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/UserRepository.cs:18 — backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/UserRepository.cs:18-23 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/UserRepository.cs:78-83 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Fake-async · ×2

Fake-async — async method never awaits backend/Contact.Application/Services/UserService.cs:214 — `GetUserRolesAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.
Fake-async — async method never awaits backend/Contact.Application/Services/UserService.cs:375 — `GenerateLink` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.ts:101 — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.ts:101 · frontend/src/app/feature/user/home/home.component.ts:83 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:148 — frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:148 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:162 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:96 — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:96 · frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:118 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:107 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:107 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:120 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:67 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:67 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:57 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:63 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:60 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:60 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:80 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:66 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:121 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:121 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:145 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:74 — frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:74 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:85 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (@angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules)) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 21 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit (cyclomatic 19) frontend/src/app/@core/components/validation/control-error.directive.ts:99 — ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MenuService.getMenuItems (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

MenuService.getMenuItems (cyclomatic 16) frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:35 — MenuService.getMenuItems has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 50, 89, 92, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×1

CommentedOutCode aspire/ServiceDefaults/Extensions.cs:91 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MenuService.getMenuItems (cognitive 24) · ×1

MenuService.getMenuItems (cognitive 24) frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:35 — MenuService.getMenuItems has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (20 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 6). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 24 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 50, 89, 92, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit (cognitive 21) · ×1

ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit (cognitive 21) frontend/src/app/@core/components/validation/control-error.directive.ts:99 — ControlErrorsDirective.ngOnInit has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 8, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:32 — backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:32-51 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:54-75 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:97-118 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:121-142 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:55 — backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:55-75 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:98-118 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:122-142 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPersonValidator.cs:9 — backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPersonValidator.cs:9-23 | backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/RegisterUserValidator.cs:10-24 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:40 — backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:40-51 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:64-75 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:107-118 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:131-142 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Helper/DapperHelper.cs:40` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/ContactPersonResponse.cs:4 — backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/ContactPersonResponse.cs:4-13 | backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/UpdateContactPerson.cs:4-12 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/ContactPersonResponse.cs:4` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/OperationRepository.cs:37 — backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/OperationRepository.cs:37-44 | backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/RoleRepository.cs:44-51 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `backend/Contact.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/OperationRepository.cs:37` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPerson.cs:5 — backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPerson.cs:5-11 | backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/ContactPerson.cs:5-11 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — .NET and JavaScript/TypeScript suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the .NET half could not be measured — the repository wires up no coverage collector for `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` to use; the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — the JavaScript/TypeScript suite(s) run through a browser-driven runner the coverage collector does not drive — frontend/ (karma) — a gap in the analyzer, not something this repository is missing. This repository's production source spans both ecosystems, and no partial figure is published as if it were the whole: coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.

P5 · DR & Backup · No DR/backup evidence · ×1

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

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 7 sibling directories (10 clone groups) · ×1

Duplication concentrated across 7 sibling directories (10 clone groups) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:50 — 10 duplicated blocks under frontend/src/app/feature/admin/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories activity-log, operations, pages, role-permission-mapping, roles, user-roles (+1 more sibling(s) not listed) — 9 of them are reported below, and 1 is counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 10 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 10 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 10 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (46 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (46 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:50 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:50 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/pages.component.ts:50 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 3 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operation.service.ts:7 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operation.service.ts:7 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/page.service.ts:7 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/role.service.ts:7 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (20 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (20 matched lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:118 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:118 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:144 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 136 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 4 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:40 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:40 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:28 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:28 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:30 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 6 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 6 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:26 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operations.component.ts:26 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/pages.component.ts:26 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/roles.component.ts:32 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:32 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:185 — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:185 · frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:229 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (15 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (15 matched lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/@core/layout/header/header.component.ts:29 — frontend/src/app/@core/layout/header/header.component.ts:29 · frontend/src/app/@core/layout/layout.component.ts:35 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 70 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (14 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (14 matched lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/@core/guards/auth.guard.ts:54 — frontend/src/app/@core/guards/auth.guard.ts:54 · frontend/src/app/@core/guards/auth.guard.ts:94 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 86 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:83 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:83 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:69 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.ts:174 — frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.ts:174 · frontend/src/app/feature/user/register/register.component.ts:120 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 57 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.ts:121 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.ts:121 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/activity-log/activity-log.component.ts:144 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/role-permission-mapping/role-permission-mapping.component.ts:215 — the 3 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 5 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 5 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-details/contact-details.component.ts:52 — frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-details/contact-details.component.ts:52 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:76 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:87 · frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact-form/contact-form.component.ts:151 · +1 more site(s) not listed — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4 locations) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:141 — frontend/src/app/feature/admin/user-roles/user-roles.component.ts:141 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:110 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:123 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/users/users.component.ts:151 — the 4 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4 locations) frontend/src/app/@core/services/role-permission-mapping.service.ts:11 — frontend/src/app/@core/services/role-permission-mapping.service.ts:11 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/operations/operation.service.ts:7 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/pages/page.service.ts:7 · frontend/src/app/feature/admin/roles/role.service.ts:7 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function ngOnInit (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 18) · ×1

Complex function ngOnInit (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 18) frontend/src/app/@core/components/validation/control-error.directive.ts:99 — ngOnInit has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 18; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R6 · Tooling · No lint or typecheck script · ×1

No lint or typecheck script — test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.

R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~67 LoC) · ×1

Dead file (~67 LoC) frontend/src/server.ts — no import path from any entry point (3 application, 4 tooling, 6 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make

R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~52 LoC) · ×1

Dead file (~52 LoC) frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/sidenav-header/sidenav-header.component.ts — no import path from any entry point (3 application, 4 tooling, 6 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make

R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~51 LoC) · ×1

Dead file (~51 LoC) frontend/src/app/feature/admin/admin.module.ts — no import path from any entry point (3 application, 4 tooling, 6 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make

R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~16 LoC) · ×1

Dead file (~16 LoC) frontend/src/app/@core/pipes/phoneNumberFormat.pipe.ts — no import path from any entry point (3 application, 4 tooling, 6 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make

R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~7 LoC) · ×1

Dead file (~7 LoC) frontend/src/app/feature/contact/contact.interface.ts — no import path from any entry point (3 application, 4 tooling, 6 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make

S1 · Web-Security Posture · Password key derivation is priced too cheaply · ×1

Password key derivation is priced too cheaply backend/Contact.Application/Services/UserService.cs:391 — This code fixes ASP.NET Identity V2 (PBKDF2-SHA-1) at 1,000 iterations. A key-derivation function's only defence is the cost of ONE guess, and that cost is this number — the algorithm choice does not set it. Current OWASP guidance is 1,300,000 PBKDF2 iterations with HMAC-SHA1, 600,000 with SHA-256 and 210,000 with SHA-512; scrypt at N=2^17, r=8, p=1 (or an equivalent N·r·p product); Argon2id at 19 MiB of memory and 2 iterations (or an equivalent row); bcrypt at a work factor of at least 10. This figure divides the attacker's work by a factor of tens or hundreds against the same stolen hash, on hardware they already own. Where what is derived is short or low-entropy — a PIN, a numeric parental code, a four-character token — the whole keyspace falls in the time this parameter buys, and no salt or constant-time comparison changes that. Raise the count to the current published figure for the PRF you use, measure it on the slowest hardware that must run it (a target of roughly 100 ms per derivation is the usual budget), and read the value from configuration so a deployment can raise it again without a rebuild. Where the derived value must interoperate with a format someone else fixed, the count cannot move — derive a SEPARATE value for anything you own rather than inheriting the external format's price.

SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1

NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped · Untrusted text written into markup unescaped · ×1

Untrusted text written into markup unescaped backend/Contact.Infrastructure/ExternalServices/EmailService.cs:27 — `body` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the text of an element through an HTML e-mail body with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. Encode it for HTML at this site, render it through the framework's escaping output, or sanitise it if it must stay markup.

Minor — 51 finding(s)

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×8

README/code drift README.md:81 — README.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/aspire-guide.md:36 — docs/aspire-guide.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/development-guide.md:23 — docs/development-guide.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/development-guide.md:146 — docs/development-guide.md changes into `backend/src`, but no such folder exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/development-guide.md:160 — docs/development-guide.md runs `dotnet run --project Contact.Api` from `docs/` or the repository root, but `Contact.Api` is not there: the project is `backend/Contact.Api`. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/docker-guide.md:84 — docs/docker-guide.md names `backend/src/Dockerfile`, but no file or folder `backend/src/Dockerfile` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/docker-guide.md:430 — docs/docker-guide.md names `backend/scripts/seed-data.sql`, but no file or folder `backend/scripts/seed-data.sql` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/index.md:53 — docs/index.md names Node.js 23, but the repository declares pinned 22. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×5

Commented-out code backend/Contact.Application/Services/PermissionService.cs:30 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code backend/Contact.Application/Services/PermissionService.cs:31 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code backend/Contact.Application/Services/PermissionService.cs:36 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code backend/Contact.Application/Services/RolePermissionService.cs:86 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code backend/Contact.Application/Services/RolePermissionService.cs:88 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated (npm) · ×4

Outdated (npm): content-disposition — content-disposition 0.5.4 → 3.0.0 available.
Outdated (npm): mime — mime 1.6.0 → 4.1.1 available.
Outdated (npm): nanoid — nanoid 3.3.18 → 6.0.2 available.
Outdated (npm): path-to-regexp — path-to-regexp 0.1.13 → 8.4.2 available.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×3

Deprecated: glob REDACTED:5939 — glob 7.2.3 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Old versions of glob are not supported, and contain widely publicized security vulnerabilities, which have been fixed in the current version. Please update. Support for old versions may be purchased (at exorbitant rates) by contacting i@izs.me". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
Deprecated: inflight REDACTED:6215 — inflight 1.0.6 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "This module is not supported, and leaks memory. Do not use it. Check out lru-cache if you want a good and tested way to coalesce async requests by a key value, which is much more comprehensive and powerful.". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
Deprecated: rimraf REDACTED:8712 — rimraf 3.0.2 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Rimraf versions prior to v4 are no longer supported". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×2

No security response headers detected — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
No security response headers detected backend/Contact.Api/Program.cs:11 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.

AX6 · Interface segregation · Fat interface · ×1

Fat interface: IUserService (16 members) backend/Contact.Application/Interfaces/IUserService.cs:10 — `IUserService` declares 16 members: `Create`, `Add`, `Delete`, `Update`, `FindByID`, `CheckUniqueUsers`, `FindAll`, `Authenticate`, `GetUserId`, `GetUserRolesAsync`, `ChangePassword`, `ForgotPassword`, `ResetPassword`, `GetUserWithPermissionsAsync`, `UpdateUserRoles`, `GetUserWithRolesAsync`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces.

D21 · Naming Consistency · The concept of retrieving role permission mappings is named differently in the interface (`GetRolePermissionMappingsAsync`) and the service implementation (`GetRolePermissionMappingByRoleIdAsync`). The interface uses plural 'Mappings' and a generic name, while the service uses singular 'Mapping' and specifies 'ByRoleId'. This inconsistency in number and specificity can be confusing. · ×1

The concept of retrieving role permission mappings is named differently in the interface (`GetRolePermissionMappingsAsync`) and the service implementation (`GetRolePermissionMappingByRoleIdAsync`). The interface uses plural 'Mappings' and a generic name, while the service uses singular 'Mapping' and specifies 'ByRoleId'. This inconsistency in number and specificity can be confusing. — Standardize on `GetRolePermissionMappingsAsync` (plural) in both interface and service, or `GetRolePermissionMappingByRoleIdAsync` if singular is strictly required by the return type (though the interface returns `IEnumerable<RolePermissionResponse>` implying plural). (symbols: Method: public Task<Contact.Application.Interfaces.IRolePermissionService.GetRolePermissionMappingsAsync(System.Guid)>, Method: public Task<Contact.Application.Services.RolePermissionService.GetRolePermissionMappingByRoleIdAsync(System.Guid)>)

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1

IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget backend/Contact.Application/Mapping/ObjectMapper.cs:36 — 1 of 260 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Contact.Application.Mapping.ObjectMapper..ctor @ backend/Contact.Application/Mapping/ObjectMapper.cs:36, 354 IL instructions; that pulled this dimension to 9.9/10. These bodies are far past the JIT's inline budget, so splitting them does not make them inlinable — what moves the number is emitting less: collapsing LINQ chains and closures on hot paths, and interpolation built eagerly where it is only sometimes used.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Placeholder data left in code · ×1

Placeholder data left in code backend/Contact.Api/Core/Middleware/ActivityLoggingMiddleware.cs:28 — A placeholder e-mail address ("unknown@example.com") is still in shipped code — its domain is reserved for documentation, so anything sent here is undeliverable by construction. Replace it with the real address, or take it from configuration.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 4/5 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 5, 2 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5972 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No rollback/health safety · ×1

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

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

No changelog — 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.)

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'AuthGuard' · ×1

Unused export 'AuthGuard' frontend/src/app/@core/guards/auth.guard.ts:94 — Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in frontend/src/app/@core/guards/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in frontend/src/app/@core/guards/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'EnsureModuleLoadedOnceGuard' · ×1

Unused export 'EnsureModuleLoadedOnceGuard' frontend/src/app/@core/guards/ensure-module-loaded-once.guard.ts:1 — Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in frontend/src/app/@core/guards/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in frontend/src/app/@core/guards/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'ErrorInterceptor' · ×1

Unused export 'ErrorInterceptor' frontend/src/app/@core/interceptors/error.interceptor.ts:8 — Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in frontend/src/app/@core/interceptors/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in frontend/src/app/@core/interceptors/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'Permission' · ×1

Unused export 'Permission' frontend/src/app/@core/models/permission.interface.ts:1 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'UserWithPermissions' · ×1

Unused export 'UserWithPermissions' frontend/src/app/@core/models/permission.interface.ts:55 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused private field 'permissionService' · ×1

Unused private field 'permissionService' frontend/src/app/@core/layout/custom-sidenav/menu-items.ts:28 — Nothing in its class reads or assigns this private field (for a constructor parameter property: it is stored and never read), and no string key or test reaches it by name. Remove it, or use it where it was meant to take effect.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused module-local declaration 'UserProfile' · ×1

Unused module-local declaration 'UserProfile' frontend/src/app/@core/layout/header/header.component.ts:12 — This top-level declaration is not exported and its name occurs nowhere else in its module — not called, read, typed against, re-exported or named by a string. Nothing outside the module can reach a non-exported binding, so this is the whole search: remove it, or use it.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused private field 'applyThemeEffect' · ×1

Unused private field 'applyThemeEffect' frontend/src/app/@core/services/theme.service.ts:49 — Nothing in its class reads or assigns this private field (for a constructor parameter property: it is stored and never read), and no string key or test reaches it by name. Remove it, or use it where it was meant to take effect.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · OIDC metadata fetched over HTTP · ×1

OIDC metadata fetched over HTTP backend/Contact.Api/Program.cs:23 — `RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path.

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×1

Duplicated predicate frontend/src/app/@core/interceptors/jwt.interceptor.ts:6 — `localStorage.getItem('currentUser') || '{}'` appears character-identically in 3 files — frontend/src/app/@core/interceptors/jwt.interceptor.ts, frontend/src/app/@core/services/auth-state.service.ts, frontend/src/app/feature/user/profile/profile.component.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1

Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 0/107 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.

X4 · Structured logging · Interpolated log message defeats structured logging · ×1

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging backend/Contact.Api/Core/Middleware/ExceptionMiddleware.cs:34 — 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)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score · ×1

Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~0.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 3 suppression(s) across the 18353 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

Minor — 80 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated (npm) · ×60

Outdated (npm): @alloc/quick-lru — @alloc/quick-lru 5.2.0 → 5.3.0 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/animations — @angular/animations 22.1.5 → 22.2.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/cdk — @angular/cdk 22.1.5 → 22.2.4 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/common — @angular/common 22.1.5 → 22.2.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/compiler — @angular/compiler 22.1.5 → 22.2.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/core — @angular/core 22.1.5 → 22.2.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/forms — @angular/forms 22.1.5 → 22.2.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/material — @angular/material 22.1.5 → 22.2.4 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/platform-browser — @angular/platform-browser 22.1.5 → 22.2.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/platform-browser-dynamic — @angular/platform-browser-dynamic 22.1.3 → 22.2.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/platform-server — @angular/platform-server 22.1.5 → 22.2.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/router — @angular/router 22.1.5 → 22.2.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @angular/ssr — @angular/ssr 22.1.7 → 22.2.4 available.
Outdated (npm): @emnapi/core — @emnapi/core 1.11.2 → 1.11.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @emnapi/runtime — @emnapi/runtime 1.11.2 → 1.11.3 available.
Outdated (npm): @emnapi/wasi-threads — @emnapi/wasi-threads 1.2.2 → 2.2.0 available.
Outdated (npm): @jridgewell/sourcemap-codec — @jridgewell/sourcemap-codec 1.5.5 → 1.6.0 available.
Outdated (npm): @napi-rs/wasm-runtime — @napi-rs/wasm-runtime 1.2.3 → 1.2.5 available.
Outdated (npm): @tybys/wasm-util — @tybys/wasm-util 0.10.3 → 0.10.4 available.
Outdated (npm): array-flatten — array-flatten 1.1.1 → 3.0.0 available.
Outdated (npm): body-parser — body-parser 1.20.6 → 2.4.0 available.
Outdated (npm): content-type — content-type 1.0.5 → 3.1.1 available.
Outdated (npm): cookie — cookie 0.7.2 → 2.0.1 available.
Outdated (npm): cookie-signature — cookie-signature 1.0.7 → 1.2.2 available.
Outdated (npm): debug — debug 2.6.9 → 4.4.3 available.
+ 35 more in this group — see findings.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×20

Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi — Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi 10.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Contact.Api).
Outdated: Microsoft.VisualStudio.Azure.Containers.Tools.Targets — Microsoft.VisualStudio.Azure.Containers.Tools.Targets 1.22.1 → 1.23.0 available (referenced by Contact.Api).
Outdated: Scalar.AspNetCore — Scalar.AspNetCore 2.1.10 → 2.18.2 available (referenced by Contact.Api).
Outdated: Dapper — Dapper 2.1.66 → 2.1.89 available (referenced by Contact.Infrastructure).
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer 10.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Contact.Infrastructure).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions 10.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Contact.Infrastructure).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions 10.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Contact.Infrastructure).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options — Microsoft.Extensions.Options 10.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Contact.Infrastructure).
Outdated: Npgsql — Npgsql 10.0.0 → 10.0.3 available (referenced by Contact.Infrastructure).
Outdated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.Tokens — Microsoft.IdentityModel.Tokens 8.15.0 → 8.23.0 available (referenced by Contact.Application).
Outdated: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt — System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 8.15.0 → 8.23.0 available (referenced by Contact.Application).
Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.JavaScript — Aspire.Hosting.JavaScript 13.4.6 → 13.6.3 available (referenced by Contact.AppHost).
Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.PostgreSQL — Aspire.Hosting.PostgreSQL 13.4.6 → 13.6.3 available (referenced by Contact.AppHost).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Http.Resilience — Microsoft.Extensions.Http.Resilience 10.9.0 → 10.11.0 available (referenced by Contact.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.ServiceDiscovery — Microsoft.Extensions.ServiceDiscovery 10.9.0 → 10.11.0 available (referenced by Contact.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.17.0 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by Contact.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting — OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting 1.17.0 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by Contact.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore 1.17.0 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by Contact.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http 1.17.0 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by Contact.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Runtime — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Runtime 1.17.0 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by Contact.ServiceDefaults).

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 --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-f2235d0fa44d4dfca4c79c834c1eb1ac/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	4	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-f2235d0fa44d4dfca4c79c834c1eb1ac/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 .	30	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list Contact.Api.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	18	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	17	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 31 file(s) — `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/ContactPersonController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PagesController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/PermissionsController.cs`, `backend/Contact.Api/Controllers/RolePermissionMappingController.cs`, … (+26 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a164bb-ff07-7b8d-b0e4-147f6199b9c4 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 53 field(s) across 5 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by NAME, from the C# syntax tree, with a deliberately specific identifier classifier — the same one the C1–C5 compliance cards use to decide whether personal data is present, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip. Two caveats stated rather than glossed: those cards additionally require corroboration (a persistence/account signal, or two distinct PII categories) that this inventory deliberately does not, so it lists more than they gate on; and D32 Data Compliance shares nothing with it — that dimension is a separate semgrep ruleset for personal data leaking into logs, URLs and browser storage, and a clean D32 result says nothing about this list. Informational — it feeds no score.

Name — 22 field(s)

ContactPersonResponse.FirstName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/ContactPersonResponse.cs:7
ContactPersonResponse.LastName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/ContactPersonResponse.cs:8
CreateContactPerson.FirstName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPerson.cs:5
CreateContactPerson.LastName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPerson.cs:6
UpdateContactPerson.FirstName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/UpdateContactPerson.cs:6
UpdateContactPerson.LastName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/UpdateContactPerson.cs:7
AuthenticateResponse.FirstName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/AuthenticateResponse.cs:8
AuthenticateResponse.LastName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/AuthenticateResponse.cs:9
CreateUser.FirstName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/CreateUser.cs:5
CreateUser.LastName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/CreateUser.cs:6
RegisterUser.FirstName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/RegisterUser.cs:5
RegisterUser.LastName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/RegisterUser.cs:6
UpdateUser.FirstName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UpdateUser.cs:6
UpdateUser.LastName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UpdateUser.cs:7
UserResponse.FirstName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserResponse.cs:8
UserResponse.LastName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserResponse.cs:9
UserWithRolesResponse.FirstName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserWithRolesResponse.cs:9
UserWithRolesResponse.LastName backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserWithRolesResponse.cs:10
ContactPerson.FirstName backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/ContactPerson.cs:5
ContactPerson.LastName backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/ContactPerson.cs:6
User.FirstName backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/User.cs:4
User.LastName backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/User.cs:5

Email — 13 field(s)

ContactPersonResponse.Email backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/ContactPersonResponse.cs:11
CreateContactPerson.Email backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPerson.cs:9
UpdateContactPerson.Email backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/UpdateContactPerson.cs:10
CreateUser.Email backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/CreateUser.cs:9
RegisterUser.Email backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/RegisterUser.cs:9
ResetPassword.Email backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/ResetPassword.cs:5
UpdateUser.Email backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UpdateUser.cs:10
UserResponse.Email backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserResponse.cs:12
UserWithRolesResponse.Email backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserWithRolesResponse.cs:13
ActivityLogEntry.Email backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/ActivityLogEntry.cs:7
ContactPerson.Email backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/ContactPerson.cs:9
User.Email backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/User.cs:8
SmtpSettings.FromEmail backend/Contact.Infrastructure/SmtpSettings.cs:9

Phone — 10 field(s)

ContactPersonResponse.Mobile backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/ContactPersonResponse.cs:10
CreateContactPerson.Mobile backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPerson.cs:8
UpdateContactPerson.Mobile backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/UpdateContactPerson.cs:9
CreateUser.Mobile backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/CreateUser.cs:7
RegisterUser.Mobile backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/RegisterUser.cs:8
UpdateUser.Mobile backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UpdateUser.cs:9
UserResponse.Mobile backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserResponse.cs:11
UserWithRolesResponse.Mobile backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/Users/UserWithRolesResponse.cs:12
ContactPerson.Mobile backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/ContactPerson.cs:8
User.Mobile backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/User.cs:7

Address — 4 field(s)

ContactPersonResponse.PostalCode backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/ContactPersonResponse.cs:13
CreateContactPerson.PostalCode backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPerson.cs:11
UpdateContactPerson.PostalCode backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/UpdateContactPerson.cs:12
ContactPerson.PostalCode backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/ContactPerson.cs:11

Date of birth — 4 field(s)

ContactPersonResponse.DateOfBirth backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/ContactPersonResponse.cs:9
CreateContactPerson.DateOfBirth backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/CreateContactPerson.cs:7
UpdateContactPerson.DateOfBirth backend/Contact.Application/UseCases/ContactPerson/UpdateContactPerson.cs:8
ContactPerson.DateOfBirth backend/Contact.Domain/Entities/ContactPerson.cs:7

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 70% · Adequate ·

At a glance — Architecture · 85% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 56% · Adequate · gated by M4 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 35% · Weak · gated by D13, R6, P3, P5 ·

At a glance — Security · 56% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29, D30, D36 ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 57% · Adequate ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

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

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Downloadable artifacts