Business logic/API for a software-management application
Public report — Software-Management-Core, published 29 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 29-06-2026 @ 21:34 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

NiwrA/Software-Management-Core

No regression coverage not measuredbounded contexts not declared
43% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
upper third — near Adequate
Architecture 91% Exemplary Code Health 60% Adequate Maturity 45% Weak Security 44% Weak Readiness 34% Weak

Small · 11,870 LoC · 11 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (34%)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

47/50dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
168findings with an exact file:lineof 182 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
50/94dimensions across the health lenses11870 LoC · 11 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

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

niwrA/Software-Management-Core carries serious risk (43%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Architecture (91%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (34%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Security (44%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your… (Outbound HTTP resilience); Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like… (Observability).

For scale: Small (~11,870 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (91%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 60% Adequate · gated by IC1 Architecture 91% ★ Exemplary Maturity 45% Weak · gated by M2 Readiness 34% Weak · gated by P1, P3, P7 Security 44% Weak · gated by C1
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 34% · 47% weightSecurity 44% · 26% weightMaturity 45% · 14% weightCode Health 60% · 8% weightArchitecture 91% · 4% weight

Raise Readiness 34 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 43 → ~51.

Code composition — where the lines go Plumbing-heavy — business logic is 10% of hand-written app code; most lines are wiring, declarations and straight-line glue. Fine for an integration/CRUD service; worth a look if this is meant to be logic-rich.
Business logic 4%Plumbing 36%Tests 20%Generated 40%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €4,400–€22,000
Cost to rebuild€4,400–€22,000 (0.1 person-years (74–230 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityLow — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 43% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 40% boilerplate · 50% straight-line · 10% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€13,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 34% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Low (×0.9) — service/app, transaction-script/CRUD × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
+9.9 pts · Medium effort · CI/CD gates
2
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
+9.9 pts · Medium effort · Outbound HTTP resilience
3
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
+9.1 pts · Medium effort · Observability

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 34%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (11,870 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 34%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+1.8 pts/run over 13 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +1.8 pts/run over 13 runs

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 43 ▲ 1 over 13 runs.

025507510019 Junnow
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurity

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.

arch CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore SoftwareManagementCore SoftwareManagementCore CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore->SoftwareManagementCore SoftwareManagementCoreApi SoftwareManagementCoreApi SoftwareManagementCoreApi->CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore SoftwareManagementCoreApi->SoftwareManagementCore SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository SoftwareManagementCoreApi->SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository SoftwareManagementCoreApi->SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository SoftwareManagementCoreApi->SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository->SoftwareManagementCore SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository->SoftwareManagementCore SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository->SoftwareManagementCore

At a glance — Code Health · 60% · Adequate · gated by IC1

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 9.2 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.2 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 7.2 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 7.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0
The Ugly
IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 3.1 X3 · Repo Exception handling 4.6

At a glance — Architecture · 91% · Exemplary

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 8.5 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 8.2 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.7 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.5 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 9.4 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0
The Bad
D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 7.0

At a glance — Maturity · 45% · Weak · gated by M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.0
The Ugly
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 3.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 4.0

At a glance — Readiness · 34% · Weak · gated by P1, P3, P7

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.3 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0
The Ugly
P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P2 · Repo Observability 4.8 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 44% · Weak · gated by C1

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 8.0
The Ugly
C1 · Repo Data Protection 0.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 4.5

Roadmap

First, establish a continuous integration workflow to automatically build and test every change. Next, implement HTTP client resilience to prevent external service failures from crashing the application. Then, extend structured logging across all service-like projects to ensure full production observability. After that, encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys securely. Finally, harden the web security posture by adding essential security headers and enforcing strict cookie policies.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+9.9 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.+9.9 ptsMediumOutbound HTTP resilience
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.+9.1 ptsMediumObservability
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+3.6 ptsLowADR Quality
Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ProductDtoTests.cs.+3.2 ptsLowTest Quality
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).+5.2 ptsMediumData Protection
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.+5.1 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+5.0 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 56 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 2% slop · 44% mixed · 54% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs3.2SlopExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
LinksShared/UrlImageHeaderParser.cs5.8MixedExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository/MainEventSourceRepository.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CompanyStateRepositoryTests.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
CompaniesShared/Companies.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/CompanyStateRepository.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
ProductsShared/Products.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
DesignsShared/Designs.cs6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
SoftwareManagementCoreApi/Controllers/Query/FileUploadController.cs6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
SoftwareManagementCoreApi/Startup.cs6.6MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/ProjectRoleAssignmentStateRepository.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CommandStateRepositoryTests.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CompanyDesignStateRepositoryTests.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
ContactsShared/Contacts.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
LinksShared/Links.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
ProjectsShared/Projects.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/ProjectStateRepository.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment

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. 47 of 50 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 50 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D26D27D28D29D34D35D39AX1AX10AX3AX5AX6AX8C1C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P7P8S1X1X2X3X4

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 168 of 182 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f154e-8e6a-72d5-a78d-c8c163166a8f.

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.

  • D24 Comment Value — 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.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • 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.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D20, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

4 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was LinkDetailsProcessor.GuessImage at 23.

LinkDetailsProcessor.GuessImage (cognitive 23)LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:149
LinkDetailsProcessor.GetStandardInfo (cognitive 21)LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:55
CSharpUpdater.UpdateInterfaces (cognitive 16)CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:261
CSharpUpdater.UpdateClasses (cognitive 16)CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:293

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D3 · God Classes9.2 / 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: MainRepository · ×2SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:0
FileTooLong: SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.csSoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/ProjectRoleAssignmentStateRepository.cs:135
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2)LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:80

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off the main sequence: SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository · ×2

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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 53 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

251 test methods: 251 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.3 / 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 skipped (5 with a documented reason), 5 zero-assertion, 5 mock references across 251 tests.

No assertions (empty test): ProductDtoMapsProductStateSoftwareManagementCoreApiTests/Products/ProductDtoTests.cs:12
Skipped test: CanDeleteCompanyEnvironmentState · ×4SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CompanyStateRepositoryTests.cs:38
No assertions: CanPersistChanges_WhenNoChanges · ×4SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CommandStateRepositoryTests.cs:18
Skipped (documented): CreatePostReturnsCreatedCommandAsync · ×5SoftwareManagementCoreApiTests/Commands/CommandControllerTests.cs:79
Mock framework: Moq · ×5

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 39 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt7.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

136 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 9894 LoC (1.4/KLoC) → score 7.2.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×2LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:276
TodoComment · ×125CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:18
CommentedOutCode · ×9CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:133

What to do

  1. Resolve the 125 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with CompanyStateRepository.cs (13), Companies.cs (11), MainRepository.cs (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (125 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LinkDetailsParser.cs, UrlImageHeaderParser.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 9 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with CSharpUpdater.cs, CommandsController.cs, Designs.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

11 projects, 161 .cs files, 15761 hand-written lines of code (9894 production / 5867 test), plus 11768 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 23 inter-project edges.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The single README for Software-Management-Core is a thin setup guide that describes the project's purpose and sets up one database technology (SQL Server) with steps but gives no guidance on how to build or test the API, event sourcing, command/aggregate routing, or hooking into clients. It also omits any architecture overview, design principles, or migration notes for the CQRS/eventsourcing stack it claims to manage.

XML-doc coverage: SoftwareManagementCore · ×6SoftwareManagementCore/SoftwareManagementCore.csproj

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 3.0/10. — The single README for Software-Management-Core is a thin setup guide that describes the project's purpose and sets up one database technology (SQL Server) with steps but gives no guidance on how to build or test the API, event sourcing, command/aggregate routing, or hooking into clients. It also omits any architecture overview, design principles, or migration notes for the CQRS/eventsourcing stack it claims to manage.

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion8.2 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 11 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split SoftwareManagementCore

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Split SoftwareManagementCore finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D27 · Navigability7.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

19 % of calls cross a namespace and 60 % go through an interface, but 94 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

High interface indirection

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 High interface indirection finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

D35 · Change Coupling9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: ProductCommands.cs↔MainRepository.cs 61%; ProjectCommands.cs↔MainRepository.cs 50%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: ProductCommands.cs ↔ MainRepository.cs · ×2ProductsShared/ProductCommands.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 1701 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetSoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:59

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

AX10 · Code composition8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

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

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

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

AX6 · Interface segregation9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `IProductState` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — Products.cs:11
  • `IProductConfigOptionState` declares 24 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — Products.cs:43
  • `IProductConfigOption` declares 20 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — Products.cs:86
  • `IProduct` declares 21 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — Products.cs:111
  • `ICompanyStateRepository` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — Companies.cs:52
  • `IProjectRoleAssignmentState` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ProjectRoleAssignments.cs:10
  • `ILinkDetails` declares 39 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ILinkDetails.cs:5
  • `ILinkState` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — Links.cs:18
  • `IEntityElementState` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — Designs.cs:24
  • `IFileState` declares 26 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — Files.cs:14
  • `IProductInstallationState` declares 21 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ProductInstallations.cs:10
  • `IProductInstallation` declares 19 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ProductInstallations.cs:32
  • `ICustomDocument` declares 33 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — CodeGen.cs:173

What to do

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

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

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

C1 · Data Protection0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
  • Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
C2 · Access Controls8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • [AllowAnonymous] (5) outweighs [Authorize] (1) — review whether the open surface is intended.

What to do

  • Review the [AllowAnonymous] surface — keep anonymous endpoints deliberate and documented so the open surface stays intentional.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×25) — Designs.cs:157, MainRepository.cs:702, MainEventSourceRepository.cs:151, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs3.1 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `DeleteEpicElement` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — Designs.cs:155
  • `GetContactsByCompanyRoleGuid` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainRepository.cs:700
  • `EventSourcedMainRepository` has 28 unfinished members out of 50 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:83
  • `CreateProductFeatureState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:149
  • `CreateProductVersionState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:168, MainEventSourceRepository.cs:173
  • `GetCompanyStates` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:232
  • `GetContactStates` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:248
  • `GetEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:254
  • `GetProductStates` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:270
  • `GetProjectStates` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:286
  • `RemoveEnvironmentFromCompanyState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:302
  • `CreateProductIssueState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:321
  • `AddHardwareToEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:331
  • `RemoveHardwareFromEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:336
  • `GetHardwareForEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:341
  • `AddAccountToEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:346
  • `RemoveAccountFromEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:351
  • `GetAccountForEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:356
  • `AddDatabaseToEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:361
  • `RemoveDatabaseFromEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:366
  • `GetDatabaseForEnvironmentState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:371
  • `CreateProductFeatureConfigOptionState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:376
  • `GetProductFeatureConfigOptionState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:381
  • `DeleteProductConfigOptionState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:386, MainEventSourceRepository.cs:411
  • `MoveProductFeatureConfigOption` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:391
  • `MakeDefaultConfigOptionState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:396
  • `CreateProductConfigOptionState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:401
  • `GetProductConfigOptionState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — MainEventSourceRepository.cs:406

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a README to the 11 of 11 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
  • No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure4.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

  • Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
  • Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
  • Only 1/11 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
  • Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
M4 · Documentation accuracy8.0 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

  • README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P2 · Observability4.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 1/4 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

X2 · Cancellation propagation7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 1/2 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. — FileUploadController.cs:81

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling4.6 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×2) — LinkDetailsParser.cs:276, UrlImageHeaderParser.cs:64

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (empty catch)
X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health60%Adequate — gated by IC1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture91%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity45%Weak — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness34%Weak — gated by P1, P3, P7Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security44%Weak — gated by C1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 45 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a transaction-script/CRUD architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — no data
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • 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.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • 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.
  • PF3 Async & latency 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.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 5 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×2
  • EmptyCatchBlock LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:276 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock LinksShared/UrlImageHeaderParser.cs:64 — empty catch block
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×2
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: ProductCommands.cs ↔ MainRepository.cs ProductsShared/ProductCommands.cs — `ProductsShared/ProductCommands.cs` (context ProductsShared) and `SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs` (context SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 61% of the time (14 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: ProjectCommands.cs ↔ MainRepository.cs ProjectsShared/ProjectCommands.cs — `ProjectsShared/ProjectCommands.cs` (context ProjectsShared) and `SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs` (context SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (6 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×1
  • No assertions (empty test): ProductDtoMapsProductState SoftwareManagementCoreApiTests/Products/ProductDtoTests.cs:12 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
Warning — 155 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×125
  • TodoComment CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:18 — // todo: load settings — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:41 — // todo: extract file-io to interface — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:132 — // todo: just require existing, this moves to AddElemeent — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:148 — // todo: move save to document class? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:165 — // todo: move to AddEntity — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:263 — // todo: reverse interfacesToUpdate loop with updateAction loop? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:295 — // todo: revert loops — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs:14 — // todo: warp all CodeAnalysis in an Interface — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs:63 — // todo: use original encoding? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs:66 — // File.WriteAllText(path, content, Encoding.UTF8); // todo: use original encoding? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs:231 — // todo: move to 'PersistChanges()'? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs:244 — // todo: move to 'PersistChanges()'? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs:260 — // todo: make settings file. These are development / test settings — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs:273 — // todo: make 'clean' template entity, or get it from the UI — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs:291 — // todo: this is user and machine specific! either update in repository or neatly find on this machine — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGen.cs:295 — // todo: factor out this public property and use the one in fileIO — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CodeGenShared/CodeGenCommands.cs:29 — // todo: configurable externally? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CompaniesShared/Companies.cs:156 — // todo: implement concurrency policy — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CompaniesShared/Companies.cs:167 — // todo: implement concurrency policy — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CompaniesShared/Companies.cs:178 — // todo: implement concurrency policy — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CompaniesShared/Companies.cs:261 — // todo: implement concurrency policy — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CompaniesShared/Companies.cs:306 — // todo: implement concurrency policy — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CompaniesShared/Companies.cs:318 — // todo: implement concurrency policy — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CompaniesShared/Companies.cs:347 — // todo: implement concurrency policy — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment CompaniesShared/Companies.cs:359 — // todo: implement concurrency policy — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • + 100 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×9
  • CommentedOutCode CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:133 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode DesignsShared/Designs.cs:54 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode SoftwareManagementCoreTests/Companies/HardwareCommandsTests.cs:45 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode FilesShared/Files.cs:63 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode LinksShared/Links.cs:62 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode SoftwareManagementCoreApi/Startup.cs:65 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:445 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode SoftwareManagementCoreApi/Controllers/Command/CommandsController.cs:197 — 10 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode SoftwareManagementCoreApi/Controllers/Query/HomeController.cs:37 — 15 consecutive commented-code lines
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped test · ×4
  • Skipped test: CanDeleteCompanyEnvironmentState SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CompanyStateRepositoryTests.cs:38 — Skipped — In progress
  • Skipped test: CanGetEnvironmentState SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CompanyStateRepositoryTests.cs:51 — Skipped — In progress
  • Skipped test: CanDeleteProductVersionState SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/ProductStateRepositoryTests.cs:38 — Skipped — In progress
  • Skipped test: CanDeleteProductFeatureState SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/ProductStateRepositoryTests.cs:73 — Skipped — In progress
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×4
  • No assertions: CanPersistChanges_WhenNoChanges SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CommandStateRepositoryTests.cs:18 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: CanDeleteDesignState SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CompanyDesignStateRepositoryTests.cs:31 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: CanDeleteEmploymentState SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/EmploymentStateRepositoryTests.cs:32 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: CanDeleteProjectRoleAssignmentState SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/ProjectRoleAssignmentStateRepositoryTests.cs:34 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×2
  • TooManyMethods: MainRepository SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 352 lines, 98 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: EventSourcedMainRepository SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository/MainEventSourceRepository.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 145 lines, 51 methods.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2
  • Off the main sequence: SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository — SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository — SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LinkDetailsProcessor.GuessImage (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • LinkDetailsProcessor.GuessImage (cognitive 23) LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:149 — LinkDetailsProcessor.GuessImage has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LinkDetailsProcessor.GetStandardInfo (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • LinkDetailsProcessor.GetStandardInfo (cognitive 21) LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:55 — LinkDetailsProcessor.GetStandardInfo has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CSharpUpdater.UpdateInterfaces (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • CSharpUpdater.UpdateInterfaces (cognitive 16) CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:261 — CSharpUpdater.UpdateInterfaces has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CSharpUpdater.UpdateClasses (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • CSharpUpdater.UpdateClasses (cognitive 16) CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CSharpUpdater.cs:293 — CSharpUpdater.UpdateClasses has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1
  • LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.notable[5].verdict | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 956.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1
  • FileTooLong: SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 678 lines.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/ProjectRoleAssignmentStateRepository.cs:135 — SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/ProjectRoleAssignmentStateRepository.cs:135-142 | SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/ProjectRoleAssignmentStateRepository.cs:176-183
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:80 — LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:80-84 | LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:87-91
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 5 finding(s)
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 9894 LoC across 11 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split SoftwareManagementCore · ×1
  • Split SoftwareManagementCore — A 'SoftwareManagementCore' name alone is a vague catch-all that is large (4k LoC) and spans 12 unrelated namespaces. Suggested: by namespace: split the twelve namespaces into focused modules handling different aspects of software lifecycle management.
D27 · Navigability · High interface indirection · ×1
  • High interface indirection — 60 % of calls go through an interface — tracing a call means resolving the implementation each hop. Prefer concrete types where there's a single implementation.
D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1
  • IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:59 — 1 of 1701 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository.MainContext.OnModelCreating @ SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:59, 707 IL instructions; large bodies don't JIT-inline, which pulled this dimension to 10.0/10; splitting the hottest bodies recovers the most.
Info — 17 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×6
  • XML-doc coverage: SoftwareManagementCore SoftwareManagementCore/SoftwareManagementCore.csproj — SoftwareManagementCore: 0 % XML-doc coverage (4/970).
  • XML-doc coverage: SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository.csproj — SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/358).
  • XML-doc coverage: SoftwareManagementCoreApi SoftwareManagementCoreApi/SoftwareManagementCoreApi.csproj — SoftwareManagementCoreApi: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/338).
  • XML-doc coverage: SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository/SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository.csproj — SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/109).
  • XML-doc coverage: SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository.csproj — SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/273).
  • XML-doc coverage: CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore/CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore.csproj — CodeGenCSharpUpdaterCore: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/88).
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped (documented) · ×5
  • Skipped (documented): CreatePostReturnsCreatedCommandAsync SoftwareManagementCoreApiTests/Commands/CommandControllerTests.cs:79 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Functioning end-to-end test, only enable for end-to-end testing
  • Skipped (documented): GetCompanies_Succeeds SoftwareManagementCoreApiTests/Companies/CompaniesControllerTests.cs:49 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Setup not yet complete (needs Development Environment setup with InMemory db)
  • Skipped (documented): GetContacts_Succeeds SoftwareManagementCoreApiTests/Contacts/ContactsControllerTests.cs:87 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Setup not yet complete (needs Development Environment setup with InMemory db)
  • Skipped (documented): GetProjects_Succeeds SoftwareManagementCoreApiTests/Projects/ProjectsControllerTests.cs:49 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Setup not yet complete (needs Development Environment setup with InMemory db)
  • Skipped (documented): CanDeleteEpicElementState SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests/CompanyDesignStateRepositoryTests.cs:104 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: todo: inject some state to delete?
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×5
  • Mock framework: Moq — SoftwareManagementCoreTests references Moq.
  • Mock framework: Moq — SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepositoryTests references Moq.
  • Mock framework: Moq — SoftwareManagementCoreApiTests references Moq.
  • Mock framework: Moq — SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepositoryTests references Moq.
  • Mock framework: Moq — CodeGenCoreTests references Moq.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0—

Run 019f154e-8e6a-72d5-a78d-c8c163166a8f · 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 — 24 field(s) across 4 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 with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Email — 13 field(s)
  • ChangeEmailForContactCommand.OriginalEmail ContactsShared/ContactCommands.cs:52
  • ChangeEmailForContactCommand.Email ContactsShared/ContactCommands.cs:53
  • IContactState.Email ContactsShared/Contacts.cs:20
  • IContact.Email ContactsShared/Contacts.cs:46
  • Contact.Email ContactsShared/Contacts.cs:67
  • ContactBuilder._email ContactsShared/Contacts.cs:149
  • ILinkDetails.Email LinksShared/ILinkDetails.cs:9
  • LinkDetails.Email LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:230
  • ContactDto.Email SoftwareManagementCoreApi/Controllers/Query/ContactsController.cs:21
  • UserInfoDto.Email SoftwareManagementCoreApi/Controllers/Query/HomeController.cs:25
  • ContactState.Email SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:209
  • ContactState.Email SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository/MainEventSourceRepository.cs:15
  • ContactState.Email SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/ContactStateRepository.cs:17
Date of birth — 8 field(s)
  • ChangeBirthDateOfContactCommand.OriginalBirthDate ContactsShared/ContactCommands.cs:76
  • ChangeBirthDateOfContactCommand.BirthDate ContactsShared/ContactCommands.cs:77
  • IContactState.BirthDate ContactsShared/Contacts.cs:19
  • ContactDto.BirthDate SoftwareManagementCoreApi/Controllers/Query/ContactsController.cs:22
  • ContactState.BirthDate SoftwareManagementEFCoreRepository/MainRepository.cs:208
  • ContactState.BirthDate SoftwareManagementEventSourcedRepository/MainEventSourceRepository.cs:14
  • ContactState.BirthDate SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/ContactStateRepository.cs:16
  • LinkState.BirthDate SoftwareManagementMongoDbCoreRepository/LinkStateRepository.cs:16
Phone — 2 field(s)
  • ILinkDetails.PhoneNumber LinksShared/ILinkDetails.cs:15
  • LinkDetails.PhoneNumber LinksShared/LinkDetailsParser.cs:231
Name — 1 field(s)
  • UserInfoDto.GivenName SoftwareManagementCoreApi/Controllers/Query/HomeController.cs:23

Issues: 5 · Warnings: 155 · Recommendations: 5 · Info: 17 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 29-06-2026 @ 21:34 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md