EventSourcing.NetCore — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.

oskardudycz/EventSourcing.NetCore is in a workable but fragile state (56%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.

It is strongest in Event Sourcing (100%) — its event log is trustworthy to replay. Event-Driven (86%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Security (52%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Domain Modelling (53%) is the next concern — the domain model leaks and drifts, so business rules are harder to trust and change.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: authorization at every handler (Access Controls); security response headers (Content-Security-Policy (Web-Security Posture); strongly-typed ids across the domain (Strongly-typed ids).

For scale: Medium (~34,105 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~1.0 person-years (~1–2 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Event Sourcing foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 80% Strong Architecture 80% Strong Maturity 58% Adequate · gated by D34 Readiness 63% Adequate · gated by D13 Security 52% Adequate · gated by D36, C2 Domain Modelling 53% Adequate · gated by DM2, DM4 Event-Driven 86% ★ Exemplary Event Sourcing 100% ★ Exemplary Performance 75% Strong

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.

Security 52% · 45% weightDomain Modelling 53% · 25% weightMaturity 58% · 14% weightReadiness 63% · 8% weightPerformance 75% · 4% weightCode Health 80% · 2% weightArchitecture 80% · 1% weightEvent-Driven 86% · 1% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 0% weight

Raise Security 52 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 56 → ~59.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 7%Plumbing 38%Tests 54%Generated 1%

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €48,000–€240,000

Cost to rebuild	€48,000–€240,000 (0.5–1.5 person-years (792–2,506 h), ~1–2 engineers)
Domain complexity	Very high — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.8× (at 56% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · 49% boilerplate · 36% straight-line · 15% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~1.0 person-years of build effort (about ~€140,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 52% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×2.2) — microservices, CQRS, domain model, event-driven integration, event sourcing × a 0.8× 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.

Enforce authorization at every handler — call the guard method (throw-on-violation) from each one, or adopt [Authorize] so protected-by-default is demonstrable.

+3.8 pts · Medium effort · Access Controls

Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.

+1.9 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness

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.

+3.7 pts · Medium effort · Web-Security Posture

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Medium asset (~1.0 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 52%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~1.0 person-years rebuild (34,105 LoC) · weakest lens: Security 52%

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

Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain · Medium · Root cause

49 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.

Evidence: DM5 setters: 4 · DM4 anemic: 30 · DM2 primitive ids: 15

→ Address encapsulation as one pattern (private setters + behaviour + strongly-typed ids), not 100 separate findings.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Enforce authorization at every handler — call the guard method (throw-on-violation) from each one, or adopt [Authorize] so protected-by-default is demonstrable. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Enforce authorization at every handler — call the guard method (throw-on-violation) from each one, or adopt [Authorize] so protected-by-default is demonstrable.

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 56 ▲ 1 over 9 runs.

OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityDomain ModellingEvent-DrivenEvent SourcingPerformance

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.

At a glance — Code Health · 80% · Strong

ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 7.5

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary

The Good

ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 75% · Strong

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 7.5 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	6	High / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	6	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, enforce authorization at every handler by adopting the [Authorize] attribute to ensure protected-by-default security. Next, harden the web-security posture by adding critical response headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options to establish defense in depth. Then, complete the migration to strongly-typed IDs across the domain to prevent transposed-argument bugs. After that, move business rules onto aggregates and entities to enforce invariants at the source rather than in anemic services. Finally, invert domain-to-infrastructure dependencies by declaring interfaces in the domain layer to reduce coupling.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Enforce authorization at every handler — call the guard method (throw-on-violation) from each one, or adopt [Authorize] so protected-by-default is demonstrable.	+3.8 pts	Medium	Access Controls
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.	+1.9 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
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.	+3.7 pts	Medium	Web-Security Posture
Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+1.8 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+1.8 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+1.8 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.	+3.2 pts	Medium	Strongly-typed ids
Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.	+3.2 pts	Medium	Rich vs anemic model

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 92 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 1% mixed · 99% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/03-AppendingEvents.Marten/AppendingEvents.cs	5.4	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential
Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/EventStoreBasics.Tests/Exercise10ProjectionsWithMarten.cs	6.0	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Dockerfile	6.5	Near-clean	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Dockerfile	6.5	Near-clean	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Dockerfile	6.5	Near-clean	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Transformations/OneToOneEventTransformations.cs	6.5	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/20-EntitiesDefinition/GuestStayFacade.cs	6.5	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Core/Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs	6.7	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Sample/ECommerce/Shipments/Shipments.Api/Program.cs	6.9	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/03-CreateAppendEventFunction/EventStore.cs	6.9	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/03-OptimisticConcurrency/EventStore.cs	6.9	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Sample/Tickets/Tickets.Tests/Reservations/CancellingReservation/CancelReservationTests.cs	7.0	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): ForConfirmedReservation_ShouldFailWithInvalidOperation
Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/appsettings.Production.json	7.2	Near-clean	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential
Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/appsettings.Production.json	7.2	Near-clean	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential
Sample/ClosingTheBooks/PointOfSales.Api/appsettings.Production.json	7.2	Near-clean	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential
Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/03-AppendingEvents.Marten/AppendingEvents.cs	7.2	Near-clean	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential
Sample/EventStoreDB/Simple/ECommerce/Storage/ECommerceDbContext.cs	7.2	Near-clean	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential
Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Aggregate/Reaggregation.cs	7.3	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Sample/ECommerce/Payments/Payments/Payments/FailingPayment/PaymentFailed.cs	7.3	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/18-Projections.MultiStream.OutOfOrder.Marten/ProjectionsTests.cs	7.3	Near-clean	Explicit 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. 65 of 67 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 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 — 67 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D21D24D26D27D28D29D31D34D35D36AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8AX9C2DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8ED1ED4ED5ES1GD1IC1M1M3M4P1P2P4P5P6P7P8PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 133 of 177 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f1558-951d-731f-8aeb-aedc28bccc64.

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.

D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
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.
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.
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.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
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").
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D21, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

38 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:127

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×5Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCartById/ShoppingCartDetails.cs:78

Duplicated block (48 lines × 2) · ×4Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70

Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) · ×3Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCartById/ShoppingCartDetails.cs:28

Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×3Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:127

+ 14 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

Off the main sequence: Core.Serialization · ×5

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 111 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

810 test methods: 761 unit, 49 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 skipped (4 with a documented reason), 4 zero-assertion, 25 mock references across 1015 tests.

No assertions (empty test): ForConfirmedReservation_ShouldFailWithInvalidOperation · ×2Sample/Tickets/Tickets.Tests/Reservations/CancellingReservation/CancelReservationTests.cs:34

No assertions: Test1 · ×2Sample/decider/Decider.Tests/UnionTypesTests.cs:75

Skipped test: AddingAndUpdatingAggregate_ShouldCreateAndUpdateSnapshotAccordinglyWorkshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/EventStoreBasics.Tests/Exercise10ProjectionsWithMarten.cs:172

Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×25

Skipped (documented): Given_When_Then · ×4Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Aggregate/Reaggregation.cs:72

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 2 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky); other: not included — too large to re-run within its budget.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

6 secret(s) detected.

Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential · ×6Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/03-AppendingEvents.Marten/AppendingEvents.cs:81

What to do

Resolve the 6 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with appsettings.Production.json (3), AppendingEvents.cs (2), ECommerceDbContext.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 75 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor4.9 / 10Weak✓ 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 4.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

121 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/07-BusinessLogic.Slimmed/Mixed/ShoppingCart.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

66 deducted debt markers + 4 dead symbols across 33650 LoC (0.3/KLoC) → score 9.4.

EmptyCatchBlockSample/ECommerce/ECommerce.AppHost/Containers/ParameterExtensions.cs:90

TodoComment · ×54Core.EventStoreDB/Subscriptions/EventStoreDBSubscriptionToAll.cs:118

CommentedOutCode · ×10Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Aggregate/Reaggregation.cs:141

Dead code: IsRecord · ×4Core/Reflection/TypeProvider.cs:5

HackCommentCore.Kafka/Consumers/KafkaConsumer.cs:66

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

167 projects, 1496 .cs files, 74796 hand-written lines of code (33650 production / 41146 test), plus 827 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 312 inter-project edges.

Monorepo: only 1 of 20 solutions was scored

Shell project: Orders.Tests · ×3Sample/ECommerce/Orders/Orders.Tests/Orders.Tests.csproj

Thin analysable surface across projects

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

1 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

The concept of 'Resolution' is used in 'ResolutionType' but also appears as 'ResolutionResolution' in batch resolution events, suggesting a naming collision or redundancy.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment Value / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

42 valuable / 1 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentSample/ECommerce/Carts/Carts.Api/Program.cs:29

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 167 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability8.7 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

87 % of calls cross a namespace and 11 % go through an interface, but 97 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

Improve Navigability — currently 8.7/10. — 87 % of calls cross a namespace and 11 % go through an interface, but 97 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High IaC: DS-0002 · ×3Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

Low IaC: DS-0026 · ×3Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

What to do

Resolve the 3 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.2 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

232 of 238 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/EventStoreBasics/EventStore.cs.

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

Unpinned build actions

No build provenance

No artifact signing

No SBOM

What to do

Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

`EventBus` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IEnumerable handlers`, which is registered as Scoped. The singleton captures one instance of the scoped dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IEventHandler` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — EventBus.cs:132

What to do

Don't inject scoped/transient services into singletons; resolve them per-use via IServiceScopeFactory or a factory delegate, or align the lifetimes.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition7.1 / 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).

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons6.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`PostgresSubscriptionCheckpointSetup` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (wasCreated; e.g. `wasCreated` at line 19). — PostgresSubscriptionCheckpointSetup.cs:5

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C2 · Access Controls3.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

Authorization machinery exists but no [Authorize] usage and no imperative guard calls were found at handlers.

What to do

Enforce authorization at every handler — call the guard method (throw-on-violation) from each one, or adopt [Authorize] so protected-by-default is demonstrable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — How much of the domain uses strongly-typed ids vs raw Guid/string/int — adoption curve, not all-or-nothing.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Coverage: Population: id-like members by *Id/*Key NAME suffix; strongly-typed-ID shape then checked semantically — non-suffixed identifiers are not seen.

`ShoppingCart.ClientId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ClientId { Guid Value }`). (×6) — ShoppingCart.cs:15, ShoppingCart.cs:15, ShoppingCart.cs:47, …
`Order.PaymentId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct PaymentId { Guid Value }`). — Order.cs:19
`Payment.OrderId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrderId { Guid Value }`). — Payment.cs:11
`Reservation.SeatId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SeatId { Guid Value }`). — Reservation.cs:12
`Seat.ConcertId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ConcertId { Guid Value }`). — Seat.cs:7
`Ticket.SeatId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct SeatId { Guid Value }`). — Ticket.cs:7
`MutableShoppingCart.ClientId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ClientId { Guid Value }`). (×4) — MutableShoppingCart.cs:47, MutableShoppingCart.cs:47, MutableShoppingCart.cs:47, …

What to do

Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model3.2 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

`Aggregate` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×2) — Aggregate.cs:7, Aggregate.cs:5
`MotionSensor` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — MotionSensor.cs:6
`TemperatureMeasurement` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — TemparatureMeasurement.cs:7
`ShoppingCart` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×2) — ShoppingCart.cs:13, ShoppingCart.cs:13
`Order` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Order.cs:9
`Payment` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Payment.cs:9
`Meeting` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Meeting.cs:8
`Meeting` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Meeting.cs:5
`Concert` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Concert.cs:5
`Reservation` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Reservation.cs:10
`Seat` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Seat.cs:5
`Ticket` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Ticket.cs:5
`Aggregate` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×8) — Aggregate.cs:10, Aggregate.cs:10, Aggregate.cs:10, …
`MutableShoppingCart` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×3) — MutableShoppingCart.cs:45, MutableShoppingCart.cs:45, MutableShoppingCart.cs:45
`ShoppingCart` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×4) — ShoppingCart.cs:45, ShoppingCart.cs:45, ShoppingCart.cs:45, …
`MutableShoppingCart` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — MutableShoppingCart.cs:45

What to do

Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state (private/init-only setters) instead of exposing public setters that bypass invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): public setters on entities detected; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

`TemperatureMeasurement` exposes public setter(s) (Started, LastRecorded, Mesurements). — TemparatureMeasurement.cs:7
`ShoppingCart` exposes public setter(s) (ClientId, Status, ProductItems). — ShoppingCart.cs:13
`GuestStayAccount` exposes public setter(s) (Version). — GuestStayAccount.cs:34
`MutableShoppingCart` exposes public setter(s) (Version). — MutableShoppingCart.cs:45

What to do

Make entity setters private/init-only; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary4.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

`DocumentSessionExtensions` (domain layer) references `Marten` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — DocumentSessionExtensions.cs:13
`ReadOnlyRepository` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — ReadOnlyRepository.cs:6
`Repository` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — Repository.cs:6
`ReadOnlyOnlyService` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. (×2) — ReadOnlyOnlyService.cs:9, ReadOnlyOnlyService.cs:8
`ProductsConfig` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. (×5) — ProductsConfig.cs:10, ProductsConfig.cs:9, ProductsConfig.cs:9, …
`ECommerceDbContext` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). (×5) — ECommerceDbContext.cs:7, ECommerceDbContext.cs:7, ECommerceDbContext.cs:7, …
`ECommerceDbContextFactory` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. (×5) — ECommerceDbContext.cs:15, ECommerceDbContext.cs:15, ECommerceDbContext.cs:15, …
`DbContextExtensions` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). (×5) — DbContextExtensions.cs:5, DbContextExtensions.cs:5, DbContextExtensions.cs:5, …
`Service` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — Service.cs:9
`ProductReadOnlyService` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — ProductReadOnlyService.cs:8
`ProductService` (domain layer) uses `DbContext` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. (×2) — ProductService.cs:8, ProductService.cs:11
`GetProductByIdHandler` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. (×3) — GetById.cs:18, GetById.cs:18, GetById.cs:18
`GetProductsHandler` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. (×2) — GetProducts.cs:17, GetProducts.cs:17
`ECommerceConfig` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Routing` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — ECommerceConfig.cs:8
`HttpExtensions` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — HttpExtensions.cs:6
`ProductsConfig` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Routing` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — ProductsConfig.cs:13
`Route` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Routing` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). (×3) — Route.cs:12, Route.cs:12, Route.cs:7
19 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 59.

What to do

Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM7 · Repository granularity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether repositories are per aggregate root (not per child entity) so the root's invariants can't be bypassed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): repository abstraction detection; repositories over non-aggregate-root entities flagged. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: repositories + aggregate roots by NAME convention; per-root repository rule checked within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

The parameters [id, name, sku] travel together across 14 signatures and were confirmed as a coherent concept by the model — that's a missing value object. Extracting them into one type (e.g. `Address`, `Money`, `Coordinate`) removes repetition, prevents argument-order mistakes, and gives the concept a home for its rules. — ProductShortInfoResponse.cs:3

What to do

Extract recurring primitive parameter clusters into value objects so the concept (and its rules) lives in one place.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`MartenExternalProjection` writes to the database while `HandleCartFinalized` publishes to the message bus in the same command-handling flow, with no outbox referenced on either path. Splitting the persist and the publish across sibling methods (or two collaborating actors) doesn't make them atomic — a crash between the two either loses the message or emits a phantom event. Use the transactional outbox pattern so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — MartenExternalProjection.cs:10

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency7.9 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

`FinalizingCart.HandleCartFinalized.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (×2) — ShoppingCartFinalized.cs:30, ShoppingCartFinalized.cs:25
`FailingPayment.TransformIntoPaymentFailed.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (×2) — PaymentFailed.cs:32, PaymentFailed.cs:51
`MediatR.MediatorEventRouter.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — MediatorEventRouter.cs:8
`GroupCheckouts.GuestStayDomainService.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (×2) — GroupCheckoutDomainService.cs:43, GroupCheckoutDomainService.cs:36

What to do

Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether Apply/When folds reconstruct state purely from the event (no DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random or IO) so replay is reproducible.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 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. (×13) — ParameterExtensions.cs:114, KafkaProducer.cs:34, KafkaProducer.cs:36, …

What to do

Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs6.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`ApplyAsync` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — EntityFrameworkProjection.cs:33
`DocumentSessionExtensions` has 4 unfinished members out of 4 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — DocumentSessionExtensions.cs:6
`Add` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×4) — DocumentSessionExtensions.cs:8, DocumentSessionExtensions.cs:12, EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:25, …
`GetAndUpdate` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×4) — DocumentSessionExtensions.cs:16, DocumentSessionExtensions.cs:23, EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:33, …
`EventStoreDBExtensions` has 6 unfinished members out of 6 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:6
`AggregateStream` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:8, EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:16
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×4) — MartenEventPublisher.cs:50, QuartzExtensions.cs:16, QuartzExtensions.cs:17, …
A test is skipped ("Stopped working in Marten v8") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — Reaggregation.cs:72
A test is skipped ("Some weird is happening in System channels") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — DocumentChangesForwarding.cs:110
A test is skipped ("That Doesn't work yet :(") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — EventTransformationsWithForwarding.cs:124
A test is skipped ("To investigate in Npgsql") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — StoreInitializationTests.cs:54
A test is skipped ("for now") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — Exercise10ProjectionsWithMarten.cs:172

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a README to the 126 of 167 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.5 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure4.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 30/167 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy8.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 5/71 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P5 · DR & Backup7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 111 use(s) across 36,071 production line(s) (~3.1/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. 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 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.
Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation8.9 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 196/242 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — OptimisticConcurrencyMiddleware.cs:18, MotionSensorsController.cs:23, MotionSensorsController.cs:37, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling6.4 / 10Strong✓ 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. — ParameterExtensions.cs:90

What to do

Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

~0.8 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	80%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	80%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	58%	Adequate — gated by D34	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	63%	Adequate — gated by D13	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	52%	Adequate — gated by D36, C2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	53%	Adequate — gated by DM2, DM4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven	86%	Exemplary	Solid.
Event Sourcing	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	75%	Strong	Solid.

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

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
C1 Data Protection — This is a dotnet-new template — at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
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 (event-sourced storage — lifecycle is stream archival / event TTL, not row CASCADE) — 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.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
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
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.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
ED3 Event naming — no domain or integration events detected — event-naming check not applicable
ES2 Immutable events — no persisted event types detected — immutability check not applicable
ES3 PII in the event store — no persisted event types detected — PII-in-events check not applicable
M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 12 finding(s)

D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×6

Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/03-AppendingEvents.Marten/AppendingEvents.cs:81 — hardcoded-credential detected.
Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/appsettings.Production.json:10 — hardcoded-credential detected.
Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/appsettings.Production.json:10 — hardcoded-credential detected.
Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential Sample/ClosingTheBooks/PointOfSales.Api/appsettings.Production.json:10 — hardcoded-credential detected.
Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/03-AppendingEvents.Marten/AppendingEvents.cs:92 — hardcoded-credential detected.
Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential Sample/EventStoreDB/Simple/ECommerce/Storage/ECommerceDbContext.cs:25 — hardcoded-credential detected.

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

High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
High IaC: DS-0002 Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
High IaC: DS-0002 Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×2

No assertions (empty test): ForConfirmedReservation_ShouldFailWithInvalidOperation Sample/Tickets/Tickets.Tests/Reservations/CancellingReservation/CancelReservationTests.cs:34 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): ForCancelledReservation_ShouldFailWithInvalidOperation Sample/Tickets/Tickets.Tests/Reservations/CancellingReservation/CancelReservationTests.cs:40 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×1

EmptyCatchBlock Sample/ECommerce/ECommerce.AppHost/Containers/ParameterExtensions.cs:90 — empty catch block

Warning — 119 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×54

TodoComment Core.EventStoreDB/Subscriptions/EventStoreDBSubscriptionToAll.cs:118 — // TODO: How would you implement Dead-Letter Queue here? — 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 Core.Kafka/Consumers/KafkaConsumerConfig.cs:30 — //TODO: fix that! — 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 Core.Marten/Subscriptions/MartenEventPublisher.cs:49 — // TODO: you can also differentiate based on the exception — 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 Core/Events/EventEnvelope.cs:28 — //TODO: Get rid of reflection! — 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 Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Aggregate/Reaggregation.cs:140 — // TODO: Something has changed here in Marten v7 — 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 Sample/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/FinalizingCart/ShoppingCartFinalized.cs:35 — // TODO: This should be handled internally by event bus, or this event should be stored in the outbox stream — 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 Sample/ECommerce/Payments/Payments/Payments/FailingPayment/PaymentFailed.cs:36 — // TODO: This should be handled internally by event bus, or this event should be stored in the outbox stream — 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 Sample/ECommerce/Payments/Payments/Payments/FailingPayment/PaymentFailed.cs:55 — // TODO: This should be handled internally by event bus, or this event should be stored in the outbox stream — 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 Sample/ECommerce/Payments/Payments/Payments/FinalizingPayment/PaymentFinalized.cs:40 — // TODO: This should be handled internally by event bus, or this event should be stored in the outbox stream — 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 Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/FinalizingCart/ShoppingCartFinalized.cs:30 — // TODO: This should be handled internally by event bus, or this event should be stored in the outbox stream — 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 Sample/ECommerce/Shipments/Shipments.Api/Program.cs:26 — // TODO: Add here EF concurrency exception — 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 Sample/ECommerce/Shipments/Shipments.Api/Program.cs:38 — // TODO: Add optimistic concurrency here — 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 Sample/ECommerce/Shipments/Shipments.Api/Program.cs:44 — // TODO: Add optimistic concurrency here — 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 Sample/ECommerce/Shipments/Shipments/Packages/PackageService.cs:96 — //TODO: metadata should be taken by event bus internally — 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 Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Core/Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs:56 — // TODO: you can also differentiate based on the exception — 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 Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Core/Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs:58 — // TODO: you can also differentiate based on the exception — 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 Sample/MartenMeetsElastic/MartenMeetsElastic.Tests/ElasticsearchProjectionTests.cs:58 — // (...) TODO — 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 Sample/MartenMeetsElastic/MartenMeetsElastic/Projections/ElasticsearchProjection.cs:34 — //TODO: Add poly! — 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 Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/03-CreateAppendEventFunction/EventStore.cs:23 — // TODO: Add here @event serialization — 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 Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/03-OptimisticConcurrency/EventStore.cs:23 — // TODO: Add here @event serialization — 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 Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/03-CreateAppendEventFunction/EventStore.cs:26 — // TODO: Add here getting event type name — 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 Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/03-OptimisticConcurrency/EventStore.cs:26 — // TODO: Add here getting event type name — 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 Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/03-CreateAppendEventFunction/EventStore.cs:29 — // TODO: Add here getting stream type — 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 Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/03-OptimisticConcurrency/EventStore.cs:29 — // TODO: Add here getting stream type — 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 Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/06-TimeTraveling/EventStore.cs:74 — // TODO add getting only events that are smaller or bigger than timestamp or version — 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.
+ 29 more in this group — see findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×10

CommentedOutCode Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Aggregate/Reaggregation.cs:141 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Transformations/OneToOneEventTransformations.cs:18 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Transformations/OneToOneEventTransformations.cs:24 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/EventStoreBasics.Tests/Exercise10ProjectionsWithMarten.cs:134 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Transformations/OneToOneEventTransformations.cs:1 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Transformations/OneToOneEventTransformations.cs:36 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Transformations/OneToOneEventTransformations.cs:93 — 8 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Sample/EventStoreDB/DataAnalytics/MarketBasketAnalytics.Api/Startup.cs:49 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Sample/EventStoreDB/Simple/ECommerce.Api.Tests/ApiTest.cs:13 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/EventStoreBasics.Tests/Exercise10ProjectionsWithMarten.cs:111 — 9 consecutive commented-code lines

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:127 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:127-139 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:127-139
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:168 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:168-180 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:168-180
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:167 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:167-179 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:167-179
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:127 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:127-139 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:127-139
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:168 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:168-180 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:168-180
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:167 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:167-179 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:167-179

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCartById/ShoppingCartDetails.cs:78 — Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCartById/ShoppingCartDetails.cs:78-96 | Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:128-146
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:57 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:57-75 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:57-75
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:57 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:57-75 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:57-75
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57-75 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57-75
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57-75 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57-75

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×5

Off the main sequence: Core.Serialization — Core.Serialization: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Core.WebApi — Core.WebApi: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.09, distance 0.91 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Core.Marten — Core.Marten: abstractness 0.05, instability 0.06, distance 0.89 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Core.Kafka — Core.Kafka: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.13, distance 0.87 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Core.EventStoreDB — Core.EventStoreDB: abstractness 0.10, instability 0.13, distance 0.76 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×4

Dead code: IsRecord Core/Reflection/TypeProvider.cs:5 — Method IsRecord — no references found in solution.
Dead code: ShipmentsDbContextFactory Sample/ECommerce/Shipments/Shipments/Storage/ShipmentsDbContextFactory.cs:7 — NamedType ShipmentsDbContextFactory — no references found in solution.
Dead code: FakeProductPriceCalculator Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts.Tests/Stubs/Products/FakeProductPriceCalculator.cs:6 — NamedType FakeProductPriceCalculator — no references found in solution.
Dead code: UseReserveRoomEndpoint Sample/HotelManagement/Reservations/RoomReservations/ReservingRoom/ReserveRoomEndpoint.cs:14 — Method UseReserveRoomEndpoint — no references found in solution.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (48 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (48 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70-117 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70-117
Duplicated block (48 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70-117 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70-117
Duplicated block (48 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70-117 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:73-120
Duplicated block (48 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70-117 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:70-117

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) · ×3

Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCartById/ShoppingCartDetails.cs:28 — Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCartById/ShoppingCartDetails.cs:28-46 | Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCartHistory/CartHistory.cs:19-37 | Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCarts/ShoppingCartShortInfo.cs:22-40 | Sample/EventStoreDB/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:30-48
Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:57 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:57-75 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57-75 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:59-77 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57-75
Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:57 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:57-75 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57-75 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:59-77 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:57-75

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×3

Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:127 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:127-139 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:127-139 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:129-141 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:127-139
Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:168 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:168-180 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:168-180 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/MixedShoppingCart.cs:170-182 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:168-180
Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:167 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:167-179 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:167-179 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/MutableShoppingCart.cs:169-181 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/ShoppingCart.cs:167-179

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) · ×3

Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:19 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:19-29 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:19-29 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:19-29 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:19-29
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20-30 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20-30 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20-30 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20-30
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20-30 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20-30 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20-30 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Configure.cs:20-30

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×2

No assertions: Test1 Sample/decider/Decider.Tests/UnionTypesTests.cs:75 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: GivenEvents_WhenInlineTransformationIsApplied_ThenReturnsSameNumberOfTransformedItems Marten.Integration.Tests/Tenancy/TenancyPerSchema.cs:64 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/GettingCustomerIncidentsSummary/IncidentSummary.cs:59 — Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/GettingCustomerIncidentsSummary/IncidentSummary.cs:59-69 | Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/GetCustomerIncidentsSummary/IncidentSummary.cs:60-70
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Core/EventStoreDB/EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:103 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Core/EventStoreDB/EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:103-113 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Core/EventStoreDB/EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:103-113

D10 · Test Quality · Skipped test · ×1

Skipped test: AddingAndUpdatingAggregate_ShouldCreateAndUpdateSnapshotAccordingly Workshops/BuildYourOwnEventStore/EventStoreBasics.Tests/Exercise10ProjectionsWithMarten.cs:172 — Skipped — for now

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×1

HackComment Core.Kafka/Consumers/KafkaConsumer.cs:66 — //lol ^_^ - remove this hack when this GH issue is solved: https://github.com/dotnet/extensions/issues/2149#issuecomment-518709751 — 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.

D18 · Solution Shape · Monorepo · ×1

Monorepo: only 1 of 20 solutions was scored — This repository contains 20 .NET solutions, but a scan analyzes ONE. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `EventSourcing.NetCore.slnx` — the other 19 (`Sample/AsyncProjections/AsyncProjections.slnx`, `Sample/CRUDToCQRS/CRUDToCQRS.slnx`, `Sample/ECommerce/ECommerce.slnx`, `Sample/ECommerce/PracticalEventSourcing.slnx`, `Sample/EventPipelines/EventPipelines.slnx`, `Sample/EventStoreDB/Simple/ECommerce.slnx`, +13 more) were not analyzed and are not represented in the headline. To cover them, scan each solution as its own target and group them in a Solution or Product for a portfolio roll-up. If a secondary solution is an archived or vendored tree, declare it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — to exclude it from discovery the same way generated code is.

D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.findings[1].issue | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1044.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1

Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (54 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (54 lines × 3) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:17 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:17-70 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:17-70 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:17-70

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (54 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (54 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:20 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:20-73 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:20-73

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (52 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (52 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:18 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:18-69 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mixed/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:18-69

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (51 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (51 lines × 3) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:18 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:18-68 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:18-68 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:18-68

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (51 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (51 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:19 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:19-69 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Mutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:19-69

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (36 lines × 3) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:21 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:21-56 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:21-56 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:21-56

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:23 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:23-57 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/08-ApplicationLogic.Marten/Immutable/ShoppingCarts/Api.cs:22-56

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

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Core/Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs:42 — Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Core/Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs:42-61 | Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Core/Kafka/KafkaProducer.cs:44-63

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

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Sample/CRUDToCQRS/08-SlicedEndpoints/ECommerce.Domain/Products/UpdatingProduct/Route.cs:24 — Sample/CRUDToCQRS/08-SlicedEndpoints/ECommerce.Domain/Products/UpdatingProduct/Route.cs:24-38 | Sample/CRUDToCQRS/09-MultipleModules/ECommerce.Domain/Products/UpdatingProduct/Route.cs:24-38

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Core/EventStoreDB/EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:34 — Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB/Core/EventStoreDB/EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:34-47 | Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/Solved/09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB/Core/EventStoreDB/EventStoreDBExtensions.cs:34-47

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sample/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCartById/ShoppingCartDetails.cs:87 — Sample/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCartById/ShoppingCartDetails.cs:87-95 | Sample/ECommerce/Carts/Carts/ShoppingCarts/GettingCarts/ShoppingCartShortInfo.cs:50-58

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) Sample/CRUDToCQRS/01-CRUD/ECommerce/Model/ProductProfile.cs:9 — Sample/CRUDToCQRS/01-CRUD/ECommerce/Model/ProductProfile.cs:9-15 | Sample/CRUDToCQRS/02-CRUDWithCQRS/ECommerce/Model/ProductProfile.cs:9-15 | Sample/CRUDToCQRS/03-DomainGrouping/ECommerce.Domain/Products/Config/ProductProfile.cs:10-16 | Sample/CRUDToCQRS/04-SlimmedDomain/ECommerce.Domain/Products/Config/ProductProfile.cs:10-16

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 — 16 finding(s)

D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×3

Shell project: Orders.Tests Sample/ECommerce/Orders/Orders.Tests/Orders.Tests.csproj — `Orders.Tests` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Payments.Tests Sample/ECommerce/Payments/Payments.Tests/Payments.Tests.csproj — `Payments.Tests` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Shipments.Tests Sample/ECommerce/Shipments/Shipments.Tests/Shipments.Tests.csproj — `Shipments.Tests` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.

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

Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
Low IaC: DS-0026 Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
Low IaC: DS-0026 Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 119 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner (largest: Workshops/IntroductionToEventSourcing/07-BusinessLogic.Slimmed/Mixed/ShoppingCart.cs). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 1 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (121 single-owned of 238 analysed files in total).

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

Thin analysable surface across projects — 12 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `EventPipelines.MediatR` with 16 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 94 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.5 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.

D21 · Naming Consistency · The concept of 'Resolution' is used in 'ResolutionType' but also appears as 'ResolutionResolution' in batch resolution events, suggesting a naming collision or redundancy. · ×1

The concept of 'Resolution' is used in 'ResolutionType' but also appears as 'ResolutionResolution' in batch resolution events, suggesting a naming collision or redundancy. — Rename 'IncidentsBatchResolutionResolutionInitiated' to 'IncidentsBatchResolutionInitiated' to avoid double 'Resolution'. (symbols: Helpdesk.Api.Incidents.ResolutionType, Helpdesk.Api.Incidents.ResolutionBatch.IncidentsBatchResolutionResolutionInitiated, Helpdesk.Api.Incidents.ResolutionBatch.IncidentsBatchResolutionResolutionCompleted)

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

Bounded contexts not declared — At 33650 LoC spread over 167 projects the codebase is both large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are warranted. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.

D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1

redundant comment Sample/ECommerce/Carts/Carts.Api/Program.cs:29 — "AddNpgsql()" — delete - AddNpgsql() already says this

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 232 of 238 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 232 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1

No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1

No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI (e.g. cosign / sigstore / gitsign).

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1

No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found (e.g. syft / anchore/sbom-action / *.spdx.json / *.cdx.json).

Info — 30 finding(s)

D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×25

Mock framework: NSubstitute — PointOfSales.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Carts.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Carts.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Orders.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Orders.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Payments.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Payments.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Shipments.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Shipments.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Carts.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — EventsVersioning.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Helpdesk.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Helpdesk.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — MeetingsManagement.IntegrationTests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — MeetingsSearch.IntegrationTests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Tickets.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Tickets.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — 08-ApplicationLogic.Marten.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — 09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — 10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — 11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — 08-ApplicationLogic.Marten.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — 09-ApplicationLogic.EventStoreDB.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — 10-OptimisticConcurrency.Marten.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — 11-OptimisticConcurrency.EventStoreDB.Tests references NSubstitute.

D10 · Test Quality · Skipped (documented) · ×4

Skipped (documented): Given_When_Then Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Aggregate/Reaggregation.cs:72 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Stopped working in Marten v8
Skipped (documented): GivenEvents_WhenInlineTransformationIsApplied_ThenReturnsSameNumberOfTransformedItems Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Projections/DocumentChangesForwarding.cs:110 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Some weird is happening in System channels
Skipped (documented): GivenEvents_WhenInlineTransformationIsApplied_ThenReturnsSameNumberOfTransformedItems Marten.Integration.Tests/EventStore/Projections/EventTransformationsWithForwarding.cs:124 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: That Doesn't work yet :(
Skipped (documented): GivenProperConnectionString_WhenDocumentSessionIsCreatedAndTransactionIsCreated_ThenConnectionIsCreatedAndItsPossibleToMakeRollback Marten.Integration.Tests/General/StoreInitializationTests.cs:54 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: To investigate in Npgsql

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.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet: 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 solution	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	6	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.	0	—

Run 019f1558-951d-731f-8aeb-aedc28bccc64 · 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 — 8 field(s) across 3 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.

Name — 4 field(s)

Contact.FirstName Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/Incident.cs:140
Contact.LastName Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/Incident.cs:141
Contact.FirstName Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/Incident.cs:131
Contact.LastName Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/Incident.cs:132

Email — 2 field(s)

Contact.EmailAddress Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/Incident.cs:142
Contact.EmailAddress Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/Incident.cs:133

Phone — 2 field(s)

Contact.PhoneNumber Sample/Helpdesk.Wolverine/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/Incident.cs:143
Contact.PhoneNumber Sample/Helpdesk/Helpdesk.Api/Incidents/Incident.cs:134

Oskardudycz/EventSourcing.NetCore

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Trajectory

Architecture — module dependency graph

At a glance — Code Health · 80% · Strong

At a glance — Architecture · 80% · Strong

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

At a glance — Readiness · 63% · Adequate · gated by D13

At a glance — Security · 52% · Adequate · gated by D36, C2

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 53% · Adequate · gated by DM2, DM4

At a glance — Event-Driven · 86% · Exemplary

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary

At a glance — Performance · 75% · Strong

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Downloadable artifacts