Executive summary
Read through the Preview lens: this repo is pre-1.0 / in development, so the colour bands are relaxed to what a preview needs — *green* means good enough for a preview, not yet production-stable. Code correctness and security stay near-strict even here; the score itself is absolute and comparable across repos.
patrickabadi/AutoForms carries serious gaps (40%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Architecture (98%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Code Health (89%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (22%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Security (43%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution (Test Distribution); CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like… (Observability).
For scale: Small (~5,154 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (98%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
89% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
98% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
50%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
22%
Weak · gated by D9, P1, P3
Security
43%
Weak · gated by C1
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 22% · 47% weightSecurity 43% · 26% weightMaturity 50% · 14% weightCode Health 89% · 8% weightArchitecture 98% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 22 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 40 → ~55.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 16%Plumbing 13%Tests 5%Generated 65%
New since the last scan (5+)
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €3,800–€20,000
| Cost to rebuild | €3,800–€20,000 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 40% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 33% boilerplate · 13% straight-line · 54% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€12,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 22% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
2
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
3
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 22%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
8.7
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.9
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
8.1
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
9.7
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
8.8
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
8.4
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
9.1
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Ugly
Roadmap
Begin by addressing the single missing test case in the Test Distribution to ensure comprehensive coverage. Next, establish a CI/CD pipeline to automatically build and run tests on every push or pull request. Extend structured logging across all service-like projects to improve production diagnosability. Maintain a changelog to track release history, and implement encryption for sensitive data at rest while managing keys securely.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +18.0 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +18.0 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production. | +15.1 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +14.8 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Resolve the 4 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with AutoForms.csproj, AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj, AutoForms.Test.Android.csproj. | +4.3 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). | +8.3 pts | Medium | Data Protection |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +6.4 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +5.7 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj | 3.8 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| AutoForms/Controls/ListViewItemCell.cs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| AutoForms/Controls/ControlList.cs | 6.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/App.xaml.cs | 7.3 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| AutoForms/AutoForms.cs | 7.4 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: AutoForms.BuildForms (cyclomatic 19) |
| AutoForms/Controls/ControlRadio.cs | 7.4 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: ControlRadio.AddControlContainers (cyclomatic 16) |
| AutoForms/Controls/TabGroup.cs | 7.4 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: TabGroup.UpdateControls (cyclomatic 16) |
| AutoForms/Controls/ControlValidation.cs | 7.4 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: ControlValidation.MonitorEntryControl (cognitive 22) |
| AutoForms/Common/StringHelper.cs | 7.8 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: StringHelper.Convert (cyclomatic 24) |
| AutoForms/Controls/ControlBase.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: ControlBase.CreateControl (cyclomatic 30) |
| AutoForms/Controls/SelectButton.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: SelectButton.SelectButton_Clicked (cognitive 24) |
| AutoForms/Controls/TabButton.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: TabButton.TabButton_Clicked (cognitive 20) |
| AutoForms/Converters/EnumConverter.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: EnumConverter.Convert (cognitive 17) |
| AutoForms/AutoForms.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: AutoForms |
| AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.Android/AutoForms.Test.Android.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: AutoForms.Test.Android |
| AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.iOS/AutoForms.Test.iOS.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: AutoForms.Test.iOS |
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. 36 of 38 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 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 38 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D26D27D28D29D35AX10AX3AX4AX5C1GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6X1X3X4
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, 37 of 50 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ 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 |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- 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.
- 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.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
6 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ControlBase.CreateControl at 30.
ControlBase.CreateControl (cyclomatic 30)AutoForms/Controls/ControlBase.cs:174
StringHelper.Convert (cyclomatic 24)AutoForms/Common/StringHelper.cs:69
AutoForms.BuildForms (cyclomatic 19)AutoForms/AutoForms.cs:117
ListViewItem.CreateControlView (cyclomatic 17)AutoForms/Controls/ListViewItemCell.cs:281
ControlRadio.AddControlContainers (cyclomatic 16)AutoForms/Controls/ControlRadio.cs:83
What to do
- Resolve the 1 ControlBase.CreateControl (cyclomatic 30) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ControlBase.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 StringHelper.Convert (cyclomatic 24) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with StringHelper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 AutoForms.BuildForms (cyclomatic 19) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with AutoForms.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
15 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AutoForms.BuildForms at 38.
AutoForms.BuildForms (cognitive 38)AutoForms/AutoForms.cs:117
ControlRadio.AddControlContainers (cognitive 34)AutoForms/Controls/ControlRadio.cs:83
TabGroup.UpdateControls (cognitive 33)AutoForms/Controls/TabGroup.cs:141
StringHelper.Convert (cognitive 31)AutoForms/Common/StringHelper.cs:69
SelectButton.SelectButton_Clicked (cognitive 24)AutoForms/Controls/SelectButton.cs:60
What to do
- Resolve the 1 AutoForms.BuildForms (cognitive 38) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with AutoForms.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 ControlRadio.AddControlContainers (cognitive 34) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ControlRadio.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 TabGroup.UpdateControls (cognitive 33) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with TabGroup.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
2 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)AutoForms/Controls/ControlRadio.cs:64
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)AutoForms/Controls/ControlValidation.cs:172
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
5 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: AutoForms
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Coupling in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 7 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test suite found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 4 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
10 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 4872 LoC (1.0/KLoC) → score 8.1.
NoWarnInCsproj AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj:26
TodoComment AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/App.xaml.cs:64
CommentedOutCode AutoForms/Controls/ControlList.cs:297
What to do
- Resolve the 6 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with App.xaml.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ControlList.cs, ListViewItemCell.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
5 projects, 80 source files, 5834 hand-written lines of code (4872 production / 962 test), plus 11489 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 5 inter-project edges (build failed).
Thin analysable surface across projects
Build did not complete in the analyzer
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The single README is a thin one-page description of the project with no architecture or design documentation and only partial XML-doc coverage (1/347 for AutoForms). It states usage as 'add the control in your xaml and then bind it to your data model' plus an example that shows how to add attributes on each property, but there is no platform-specific architecture, no outline of features beyond what appears in the screenshot, and no guidance about configuration or advanced behavior such as validation, filtering, localization, constants, or contributions. The visible content is sparse and the clipped document's outline confirms every listed feature exists.
Low XML-doc coverage: AutoForms AutoForms/AutoForms.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 4 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with AutoForms.csproj, AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj, AutoForms.Test.Android.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 5 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
77 % of calls cross a namespace and 9 % go through an interface, but 88 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
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?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection
- No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
What to do
- Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
- Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `InitSelector` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — TabGroup.cs:295
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×16) — AutoForms.cs:220, StringHelper.cs:58, Checkbox.cs:219, …
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)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 5 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
- Tests aren't grouped in a dedicated test folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
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 tests in the folder your build system expects (tests/, test/, spec/, or your module's test source set) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- Only 1/4 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).
What to do
- Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 89% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 98% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 50% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 22% | Weak — gated by D9, P1, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 43% | Weak — gated by C1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 58 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
- D10 Test Quality — ~962 lines of test code exist on disk but weren't loaded from the analyzed solution (excluded from the .sln, or co-located/using a test attribute not loaded here), so test quality couldn't be assessed. Include the tests in the analyzed solution to enable this check.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — test suite did not build
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 6 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- NoWarnInCsproj AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj:26
- NoWarnInCsproj AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj:37
- NoWarnInCsproj AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj:49
- NoWarnInCsproj AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj:60
- NoWarnInCsproj AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj:72
- NoWarnInCsproj AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj:83
Warning — 36 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Low XML-doc coverage: AutoForms AutoForms/AutoForms.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: AutoForms.Test.UWP AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/AutoForms.Test.UWP.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: AutoForms.Test.Android AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.Android/AutoForms.Test.Android.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: AutoForms.Test.iOS AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.iOS/AutoForms.Test.iOS.csproj
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/App.xaml.cs:64
- TodoComment AutoForms.Test/AutoForms.Test.UWP/App.xaml.cs:102
D17 · Explicit Debt
- CommentedOutCode AutoForms/Controls/ControlList.cs:297
- CommentedOutCode AutoForms/Controls/ListViewItemCell.cs:335
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- ControlBase.CreateControl (cyclomatic 30) AutoForms/Controls/ControlBase.cs:174
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- StringHelper.Convert (cyclomatic 24) AutoForms/Common/StringHelper.cs:69
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- AutoForms.BuildForms (cyclomatic 19) AutoForms/AutoForms.cs:117
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- ListViewItem.CreateControlView (cyclomatic 17) AutoForms/Controls/ListViewItemCell.cs:281
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- ControlRadio.AddControlContainers (cyclomatic 16) AutoForms/Controls/ControlRadio.cs:83
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- TabGroup.UpdateControls (cyclomatic 16) AutoForms/Controls/TabGroup.cs:141
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not measured — test suite did not build
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- AutoForms.BuildForms (cognitive 38) AutoForms/AutoForms.cs:117
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ControlRadio.AddControlContainers (cognitive 34) AutoForms/Controls/ControlRadio.cs:83
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- TabGroup.UpdateControls (cognitive 33) AutoForms/Controls/TabGroup.cs:141
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- StringHelper.Convert (cognitive 31) AutoForms/Common/StringHelper.cs:69
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- SelectButton.SelectButton_Clicked (cognitive 24) AutoForms/Controls/SelectButton.cs:60
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ControlValidation.MonitorEntryControl (cognitive 22) AutoForms/Controls/ControlValidation.cs:170
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- TabGroup.UpdateSelector (cognitive 22) AutoForms/Controls/TabGroup.cs:196
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ListViewItem.CreateActionButtons (cognitive 21) AutoForms/Controls/ListViewItemCell.cs:162
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- TabButton.TabButton_Clicked (cognitive 20) AutoForms/Controls/TabButton.cs:25
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- AutoForms.CheckValidation (cognitive 18) AutoForms/AutoForms.cs:295
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ControlList.OnBindingContextChanged (cognitive 18) AutoForms/Controls/ControlList.cs:85
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ListViewItem.CreateControlView (cognitive 18) AutoForms/Controls/ListViewItemCell.cs:281
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- EnumConverter.Convert (cognitive 17) AutoForms/Converters/EnumConverter.cs:12
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ControlValidation.BuildValidations (cognitive 16) AutoForms/Controls/ControlValidation.cs:97
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ListViewItem.RecreatControl (cognitive 16) AutoForms/Controls/ListViewItemCell.cs:100
D24 · Comment Value
- LLM evaluation failed
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) AutoForms/Controls/ControlRadio.cs:64
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) AutoForms/Controls/ControlValidation.cs:172
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: AutoForms
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
Recommendation — 4 finding(s)
D18 · Solution Shape
- Thin analysable surface across projects
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 4 finding(s)
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- git history depth insufficient
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build did not complete in the analyzer
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D35 · Change Coupling
- git history depth insufficient
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| 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 /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| 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: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Email — 1 field(s)
- AutoFormsConstants.ValidationEmail AutoForms/AutoFormsConstants.cs:42