Executive summary
nuhkoca/kotlin-modular-tdd-coroutines-mvvm scores 59 out of 100, which would normally be rated Adequate, but it is rated Weak because its weakest group of dimensions, Git mining, is rated Critical. The standard never rates a score more than one step above its weakest group, so a high average can't hide a weak area.
The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Maturity, which scores 44 and is rated Weak. Its Knowledge Freshness dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Maturity can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 6 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness and to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality, and if Maturity rose to 70, the score would rise from 59 to about 65.
17 findings are critical, all in Static Analysis (SAST).
Watchdog couldn't measure 16 dimensions in this code, among them Cyclomatic Complexity, Cognitive Complexity and Code Duplication, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 2,586 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €3,500, to rebuild.
If Maturity rose from 44 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 59 to about 65.
New since the last survey: 1 finding
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €3,500 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €1,200 to €5,900, for 19 to 62 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write. |
| Quality factor | ×0.8 at a score of 59. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it. |
| Size | Small: 2,586 lines of product code |
Top priorities
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 base.MazeGlideModule | 2 base.util | 3 base.util.coroutines | 4 base.util.delegate | 5 base.util.ext | 6 base.util.keyboard | 7 base.util.mapper | 8 base.util.widget | 9 binding | 10 di.scope | 11 vm | 12 vm.MazeViewModelFactory | 13 base | 14 base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder | 15 base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector | 16 data | 17 com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze | 18 base.Resource | 19 base.Status | 20 base.UseCase | 21 ui.MainViewModel | 22 ui.SeriesAdapter | 23 di.component | 24 domain.GetSeriesUseCase | 25 di.component.AppComponent | 26 domain | 27 ui | 28 di.module |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 base.MazeGlideModule | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 base.util | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 base.util.coroutines | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 base.util.delegate | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 base.util.ext | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 base.util.keyboard | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 base.util.mapper | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 base.util.widget | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 binding | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 di.scope | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 vm | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 vm.MazeViewModelFactory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 base | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 data | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 base.Resource | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 base.Status | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 base.UseCase | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 ui.MainViewModel | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 ui.SeriesAdapter | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 di.component | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 domain.GetSeriesUseCase | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 di.component.AppComponent | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 domain | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 ui | 4 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 di.module | 1 | 1 |
13→2 base uses base.util✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in base uses a type in base.util.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.BaseModule→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.DefaultErrorFactorycom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.BaseModule→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.ErrorFactory
- Direction
- base uses base.util, so a change to base.util can break base, while a change to base can't break base.util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: base uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
14→6 base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder uses base.util.keyboard✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder uses a type in base.util.keyboard.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder.Companion→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder
- Direction
- base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder uses base.util.keyboard, so a change to base.util.keyboard can break base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder, while a change to base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder can't break base.util.keyboard.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHolder uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→6 base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector uses base.util.keyboard✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector uses a type in base.util.keyboard.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector.Detector→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.keyboard.ActivityViewHoldercom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector.Detector→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityChanged
- Direction
- base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector uses base.util.keyboard, so a change to base.util.keyboard can break base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector, while a change to base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector can't break base.util.keyboard.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: base.util.keyboard.KeyboardVisibilityDetector uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→4 data uses base.util.delegate✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in data uses a type in base.util.delegate.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.SeriesViewItem→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.delegate.AdapterItem
- Direction
- data uses base.util.delegate, so a change to base.util.delegate can break data, while a change to data can't break base.util.delegate.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: data uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→7 data uses base.util.mapper✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in data uses a type in base.util.mapper.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.SeriesDomainMapper→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.mapper.Mapper
- Direction
- data uses base.util.mapper, so a change to base.util.mapper can break data, while a change to data can't break base.util.mapper.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: data uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→13 com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze uses base✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze uses a type in base.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.MazeApp→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.BaseApplication
- Direction
- com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze uses base, so a change to base can break com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze, while a change to com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze can't break base.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→13 base.Resource uses base✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in base.Resource uses a type in base.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Resource.Companion→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Resource
- Direction
- base.Resource uses base, so a change to base can break base.Resource, while a change to base.Resource can't break base.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: base.Resource uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
19→13 base.Status uses base✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in base.Status uses a type in base.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Status.EMPTY→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Statuscom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Status.ERROR→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Statuscom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Status.LOADING→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Statuscom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Status.SUCCESS→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Status
- Direction
- base.Status uses base, so a change to base can break base.Status, while a change to base.Status can't break base.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: base.Status uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
20→13 base.UseCase uses base✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in base.UseCase uses a type in base.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.UseCase.ResourceUseCase→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Resourcecom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.UseCase.ResourceUseCase→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.UseCase
- Direction
- base.UseCase uses base, so a change to base can break base.UseCase, while a change to base.UseCase can't break base.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: base.UseCase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→16 ui.MainViewModel uses data✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in ui.MainViewModel uses a type in data.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.MainViewModel.SeriesUiState→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.SeriesViewItem
- Direction
- ui.MainViewModel uses data, so a change to data can break ui.MainViewModel, while a change to ui.MainViewModel can't break data.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ui.MainViewModel uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→4 ui.SeriesAdapter uses base.util.delegate✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in ui.SeriesAdapter uses a type in base.util.delegate.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.SeriesAdapter.SeriesViewHolder→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.delegate.AdapterItem
- Direction
- ui.SeriesAdapter uses base.util.delegate, so a change to base.util.delegate can break ui.SeriesAdapter, while a change to ui.SeriesAdapter can't break base.util.delegate.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ui.SeriesAdapter uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→13 ui.SeriesAdapter uses base✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in ui.SeriesAdapter uses a type in base.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.SeriesAdapter.SeriesViewHolder→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.BaseViewHolder
- Direction
- ui.SeriesAdapter uses base, so a change to base can break ui.SeriesAdapter, while a change to ui.SeriesAdapter can't break base.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ui.SeriesAdapter uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→9 di.component uses binding✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in di.component uses a type in binding.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.di.component.BindingComponent→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.binding.ImageBindingAdapter
- Direction
- di.component uses binding, so a change to binding can break di.component, while a change to di.component can't break binding.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: di.component uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
23→17 di.component uses com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in di.component uses a type in com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.di.component.AppComponent→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.MazeApp
- Direction
- di.component uses com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze, so a change to com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze can break di.component, while a change to di.component can't break com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: di.component uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→20 domain.GetSeriesUseCase uses base.UseCase✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain.GetSeriesUseCase uses a type in base.UseCase.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.GetSeriesUseCase.Params→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.UseCase.Params
- Direction
- domain.GetSeriesUseCase uses base.UseCase, so a change to base.UseCase can break domain.GetSeriesUseCase, while a change to domain.GetSeriesUseCase can't break base.UseCase.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain.GetSeriesUseCase uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
25→23 di.component.AppComponent uses di.component✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in di.component.AppComponent uses a type in di.component.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.di.component.AppComponent.Factory→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.di.component.AppComponent
- Direction
- di.component.AppComponent uses di.component, so a change to di.component can break di.component.AppComponent, while a change to di.component.AppComponent can't break di.component.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: di.component.AppComponent uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→2 domain uses base.util✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain uses a type in base.util.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.GetSeriesUseCase→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.ErrorFactory
- Direction
- domain uses base.util, so a change to base.util can break domain, while a change to domain can't break base.util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→7 domain uses base.util.mapper✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain uses a type in base.util.mapper.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.SeriesViewItemMapper→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.mapper.Mapper
- Direction
- domain uses base.util.mapper, so a change to base.util.mapper can break domain, while a change to domain can't break base.util.mapper.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→13 domain uses base✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain uses a type in base.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.GetSeriesUseCase→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.Resource
- Direction
- domain uses base, so a change to base can break domain, while a change to domain can't break base.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→16 domain uses data✕
- Connections
- 8 pairs of types, where a type in domain uses a type in data.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.GetSeriesUseCase→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.SeriesViewItemcom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.SeriesRepository→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.Seriescom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.SeriesRepositoryImpl→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.Seriescom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.SeriesRepositoryImpl→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.SeriesDomainMappercom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.SeriesRepositoryImpl→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.SeriesRemoteDataSourcecom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.SeriesViewItemMapper→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.Seriescom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.SeriesViewItemMapper→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.SeriesViewItemcom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.SeriesViewItemMapper→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.data.ShowViewItem
- Direction
- domain uses data, so a change to data can break domain, while a change to domain can't break data.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→20 domain uses base.UseCase✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain uses a type in base.UseCase.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.GetSeriesUseCase→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.UseCase.ResourceUseCase
- Direction
- domain uses base.UseCase, so a change to base.UseCase can break domain, while a change to domain can't break base.UseCase.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
26→24 domain uses domain.GetSeriesUseCase✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in domain uses a type in domain.GetSeriesUseCase.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.GetSeriesUseCase→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.GetSeriesUseCase.Params
- Direction
- domain uses domain.GetSeriesUseCase, so a change to domain.GetSeriesUseCase can break domain, while a change to domain can't break domain.GetSeriesUseCase.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: domain uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→4 ui uses base.util.delegate✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in ui uses a type in base.util.delegate.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.MainActivity→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.delegate.ItemAdaptercom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.MainActivityModule→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.delegate.DelegateAdaptercom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.SeriesAdapter→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.delegate.AdapterItemcom.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.SeriesAdapter→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.delegate.DelegateAdapter
- Direction
- ui uses base.util.delegate, so a change to base.util.delegate can break ui, while a change to ui can't break base.util.delegate.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ui uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→21 ui uses ui.MainViewModel✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in ui uses a type in ui.MainViewModel.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.MainViewModel→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.MainViewModel.SeriesUiState
- Direction
- ui uses ui.MainViewModel, so a change to ui.MainViewModel can break ui, while a change to ui can't break ui.MainViewModel.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ui uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27→26 ui uses domain✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in ui uses a type in domain.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.MainViewModel→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.domain.GetSeriesUseCase
- Direction
- ui uses domain, so a change to domain can break ui, while a change to ui can't break domain.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: ui uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
28→9 di.module uses binding✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in di.module uses a type in binding.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.di.module.BindingModule→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.binding.ImageBindingAdapter
- Direction
- di.module uses binding, so a change to binding can break di.module, while a change to di.module can't break binding.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: di.module uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
28→27 di.module uses ui✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in di.module uses a type in ui.
- The types involved
com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.di.module.ActivityBuilder→com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.ui.MainActivity
- Direction
- di.module uses ui, so a change to ui can break di.module, while a change to di.module can't break ui.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: di.module uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2025 — Injection | 17 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by resolving orphaned files in the build and dependency configurations to restore knowledge freshness, then establish architectural decision records to document key design choices. Implement a diagnostic log file accessible via debug flags to capture error details for better bug reproduction, and integrate static security analysis into the CI pipeline to prevent regressions. Finally, address remaining orphaned files to ensure all code is properly linked to current documentation.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 6 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with build.gradle.kts (3), Dependencies.kt, SearchTextInputEditText.kt. | +13.3 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +8.5 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag. Start with the error paths that emit nothing — a discarded error is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce. | +7.7 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +3.7 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. | +4.9 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them. | +3.0 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.8/10. | +2.7 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +1.4 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 2.3 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
How the grades work
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 43 of 46 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 46 dimensions across the health lenses
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 24 of 30 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.kt) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.kt) had no cognitive complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
- D4 Code Duplication — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.kt) was not read by duplication detection: no source of those file kinds was exposed to the token comparison by any language model this pass could load.
- D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a coverage step in CI (`codecov/codecov-action`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.kt), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.kt) and this repository declares a JVM test suite (repository root, Gradle), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 7 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 0 dependency(ies) and leaving 7 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — this repository's 7 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read and none of the dependency coordinates they declare carries a version resolvable from the manifest itself: every one is inherited from a parent POM, a <dependencyManagement> block, an imported BOM or a Gradle version reference the catalogue does not define. Licences are resolved from the POMs Maven Central publishes, which requires a version to ask about, and grading whichever release happens to be newest today would be a verdict about a dependency graph this repository has not pinned. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (78 line(s) across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .kt, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (4 contributor(s) across 574 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 91% of the history; the other 3 hold 3% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. A language sidecar this run needed FAILED, so the code model the non-MSBuild public-API collector reads was never built — this is a DEGRADED run, not a settled gap, and the surface may well be collectable on a re-run: The Java sidecar exited 0 and produced a model, but its own source census reports it opened ZERO Java files — while the engine's presence probe found Java source in this tree. The model is therefore empty for a reason on OUR side, not the repository's, and Java is recorded as unread rather than as clean.
- D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `base/src/main/java/com/mobilemovement/kotlintvmaze/base/MazeGlideModule.kt` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
- AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Subject: a native UI project (app/src/main/AndroidManifest.xml). The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Java, Kotlin is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Kotlin is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
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
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- 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").
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- 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.
- 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.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- 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
Dimensions
D5 · Coupling
6 production modules (Gradle), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; edges a convention plugin adds from buildSrc or build-logic are not visible there, and main-sequence distance (abstractness) is not computed for these modules yet.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted task-comment markers across 2586 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README is a single-page project description that states the purpose of the sample and links to an ongoing documentation effort but does not yet explain what the project is or what it does. The architecture/Docs markdown files are comprehensive (312), covering modules, module contents, types, usage, and design with detailed outlines; they provide the full scope for each document. However, the README itself lacks installation, build, and contribution guidance, which belong to the root level. Only one README exists for the repository; it is a single HTML file named 'getBinding' inside docs/base/com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.delegate/get-binding.html (32 words) that describes a Kotlin delegate method with an API signature but gives no overview of what the project does, no installation or usage instructions, and no licence. The architecture/design docs are separate markdown files at 312 entries.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.8/10. — The repository's root README is a single-page project description that states the purpose of the sample and links to an ongoing documentation effort but does not yet explain what the project is or what it does. The architecture/Docs markdown files are comprehensive (312), covering modules, module contents, types, usage, and design with detailed outlines; they provide the full scope for each document. However, the README itself lacks installation, build, and contribution guidance, which belong to the root level. Only one README exists for the repository; it is a single HTML file named 'getBinding' inside docs/base/com.mobilemovement.kotlintvmaze.base.util.delegate/get-binding.html (32 words) that describes a Kotlin delegate method with an API signature but gives no overview of what the project does, no installation or usage instructions, and no licence. The architecture/design docs are separate markdown files at 312 entries.
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 5 build units (Gradle) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
17 finding(s): 0 critical, 17 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 16 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `gradlew` (line 74, line 178) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 16 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
6 of 6 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is app/build.gradle.kts. Counted over 6 of the 38 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What to do
- Resolve the 6 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with build.gradle.kts (3), Dependencies.kt, SearchTextInputEditText.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 6 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX2 · Stateful singletons
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
M1 · Documentation (README)
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 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
P1 · CI/CD gates
P2 · Observability
- No logging or diagnostics emission found. This repository ships a binary its users launch rather than a service you operate, so there is no operator to page — but when a run fails on a user's machine, neither they nor you have anything to read.
What to do
- Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag. Start with the error paths that emit nothing — a discarded error is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 4460 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X22 · Contradicted release guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X3 · Exception handling
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
X5 · Nullable reference types
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 95% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 44% | Weak — gated by D34 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 44% | Weak — gated by P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 95% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Performance | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 1 observation(s) recorded · The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
Not evidenced — 3 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
Not included — 67 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Dagger rejects, at compile time, a component that holds a binding with a narrower scope than its own.
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named column (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone_number, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — cyclomatic complexity not measured — .kt exposed no member bodies
- D10 Test Quality — ~747 lines of test source are present (.kt) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .kt suite was found but not re-run
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 7 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 0 dependency(ies) and leaving 7 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D14 License Compliance — JVM licences not graded — no declared coordinate carries a version the manifest itself resolves
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .kt — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — cognitive complexity not measured — .kt exposed no member bodies
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.kt), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D3 God Classes — Most of this repository's production source (.kt) was not read by god-class detection, so class size was not assessed for the languages that are the product — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's class size. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 1 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D4 Code Duplication — Duplication not measured — .kt not exposed to the token comparison
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured: of the 57 type(s) found, none both holds instance state and has two or more methods whose shared use of it could be read (38 with fewer than two methods, 11 stateless, 2 stub-like, 1 holding only inherited state, 5 vendored from upstream), so LCOM4 is undefined for every type in this repository. Not scored — the metric does not apply here, and this is not a finding about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.kt) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 11 value object(s); a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JVM source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `@Benchmark` in a Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a pom.xml, Gradle or sbt build, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Java and Kotlin code has 2,903 production line(s), 0 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Java and Kotlin were read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller (Ktor, OkHttp's newCall or a URL stream, from a suspend function) — a Java request off Android takes no token: it is cancelled through the handle it returns (Future.cancel, Call.cancel, a Disposable), ambiently (io.grpc.Context) or by interrupting its thread, not through a parameter; a Kotlin request outside a suspend function has no caller's cancellation to honour
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's Kotlin was read, and it logs through none that an assembled message defeats: Android's `Log` and Timber, java.util.logging and log4j-api-kotlin take one finished message (as log4net does in C#), or it makes no call through a named logger at all. Calls made through SLF4J, log4j 2 or kotlin-logging (`LoggerFactory.getLogger`, `KotlinLogging.logger {}`) would be judged.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 17 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
Serious — 3 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- Coverage collected but not gated
- No structured logging
Minor — 10 finding(s)
- Orphaned file app/build.gradle.kts:1
- Orphaned file buildSrc/src/main/kotlin/dependencies/Dependencies.kt:1
- Orphaned file base/src/main/java/com/mobilemovement/kotlintvmaze/base/util/widget/SearchTextInputEditText.kt:1
- Orphaned file build.gradle.kts:1
- Orphaned file buildSrc/src/main/kotlin/plugins/spotless.gradle.kts:1
- Orphaned file base/build.gradle.kts:1
- No ADRs found
- Orphaned files with no living knowledge
- No ADRs
- No SAST
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-969180b1eda345799b5aa9bbada64911/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-969180b1eda345799b5aa9bbada64911/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 17 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here) | — | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 1 file(s) — `base/src/main/java/com/mobilemovement/kotlintvmaze/base/MazeGlideModule.kt` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here) | — | none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |