Public report of phil-guo/maruko, published 21 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 21 October 2026, 19:48 UTC · Survey ID cd_8bd0647edff2467ea778ba557331ded7

phil-guo/maruko

Measured 21 October 2026, 19:46 UTC, at code version 5d66ed3

Code coverage: not measuredBus factor: not measuredIL efficiency: not measured

Code coverage is not measured: The repo's test suite did not build.

Bus factor is not measured: No living knowledge left to concentrate.

IL efficiency is not measured: The target did not build.

CAI score 36out of 100 At risk Down 1 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Architecture 93 Exemplary Performance 60 Adequate Security and Compliance 49 Weak Code Health 40 Weak Maturity 31 Weak Production Readiness 31 Weak

A small codebase: 15,072 lines of product code in 17 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.1 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 31

Findings by how serious they are

41 critical 206 serious 129 minor

5 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
21 October 2026, 19:46 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

A critical security finding is open, such as a library with a known critical vulnerability or a password or key found in the code. The score itself is unchanged, but its band shows At risk until the finding is fixed. See the Security and Compliance lens.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

73of 77 dimensions measured by tools. The other 4 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
356of 376 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 20 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
77dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 15,072 lines of product code in 17 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

phil-guo/maruko scores 36 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged.

The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 31 and is rated Weak. Its Secret Scanning dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning and to resolve the 44 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 36 to about 41.

41 findings are critical: 18 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, 11 in Explicit Debt, seven in Secret Scanning, two in IaC & Container Security, one in Coupling, one in Cryptographic Hygiene and one in Static Analysis (SAST).

Watchdog couldn't measure 4 dimensions in this code, among them Test Reliability, Dependency Hygiene and Schema migrations, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 15,072 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €21,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 40 Weak, capped by Structured logging and Nullable reference types Architecture 93 ★ Exemplary Maturity 31 Weak, capped by Knowledge Freshness, Documentation (README) and Architecture documentation Production Readiness 31 Weak, capped by Secret Scanning, CI/CD gates and Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 49 Weak, capped by Static Analysis (SAST) and Dependency Vulnerabilities Performance 60 Adequate

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

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Production Readiness 31 · counts for 46%Maturity 31 · counts for 25%Code Health 40 · counts for 14%Security and Compliance 49 · counts for 8%Performance 60 · counts for 4%Architecture 93 · counts for 2%

If Production Readiness rose from 31 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 36 to about 41.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Business logic 34%Supporting code 59%Tests 7%
New since the last survey: 63 findings

These 63 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 6 October 2026.

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 6 October 2026, and is gone from this one.

  • Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience
Rebuild cost: about €21,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€6,800 to €34,000, for 113 to 363 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemStandard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.7 at a score of 36. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeSmall: 15,072 lines of product code
Comment linesThe estimate prices 13,325 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 15,072 lines but aren't priced as work.

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

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.
Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · Secret Scanning
2
Resolve the 44 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with CurdAppService.cs (2), REDACTED, CodeGenerate.Application.cs.
Raises the score by about 5 points · Medium effort · Knowledge Freshness
3
Resolve the 2 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with RestSharpMiddleClient.cs, SysMenuService.cs.
Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Explicit Debt

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €21,000 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 31 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 6 points for low effort, because it clears the 7 Secret Scanning findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

arch Cbb.Application Application Maruko.Core Core Cbb.Application->Maruko.Core Maruko.Core.AutoMapper AutoMapper Cbb.Application->Maruko.Core.AutoMapper Maruko.Core.FreeSql FreeSql Cbb.Application->Maruko.Core.FreeSql Maruko.Core.NLog NLog Cbb.Application->Maruko.Core.NLog Maruko.Core.Web Web Cbb.Application->Maruko.Core.Web Maruko.AspNetMvc AspNetMvc Maruko.AspNetMvc->Maruko.Core Maruko.CodeGeneration CodeGeneration Maruko.Core.AutoMapper->Maruko.Core Maruko.Core.FreeSql->Maruko.Core Maruko.Core.NLog->Maruko.Core Maruko.Core.Quartz Quartz Maruko.Core.Quartz->Maruko.Core Maruko.Core.Web->Maruko.Core Maruko.Core.Web->Maruko.Core.FreeSql Maruko.Dynamic.Config Config Maruko.Dynamic.Config->Maruko.Core Maruko.Dynamic.Config->Maruko.Core.AutoMapper Maruko.Dynamic.Config->Maruko.Core.FreeSql Maruko.Dynamic.Config->Maruko.Core.NLog Maruko.Dynamic.Config->Maruko.Core.Web Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore EntityFrameworkCore Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore->Maruko.Core Maruko.Hangfire Hangfire Maruko.MongoDB MongoDB Maruko.MongoDB->Maruko.Core Maruko.SqlSugarCore SqlSugarCore Maruko.TaskScheduling TaskScheduling Maruko.TaskScheduling->Maruko.Core Maruko.TaskScheduling->Maruko.Core.AutoMapper Maruko.TaskScheduling->Maruko.Core.FreeSql Maruko.TaskScheduling->Maruko.Core.NLog Maruko.TaskScheduling->Maruko.Core.Web Maruko.Zero Zero Maruko.Zero->Maruko.Core.AutoMapper Maruko.Zero->Maruko.Core.FreeSql Maruko.Zero->Maruko.Core.NLog Maruko.Zero->Maruko.Core.Web

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

103 modules, with 153 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 5 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 63 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 Maruko.Core.Application2 Maruko.Core.Application.Servers.Dto3 Maruko.Core.Extensions.Http4 Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal5 Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal.Repos6 Maruko.Core.Modules7 Maruko.Core.ObjectMapping8 com.act.core.application9 com.act.core.domain10 Cbb.Application.Internal.Domain11 Cbb.Application.Internal.Services.DTO12 Maruko.Core.Application.Servers13 Maruko.Core.Quartz.Internal.Models14 com.act.core.utils15 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.menu.dto16 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.operate.dto17 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.page.dto18 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.pageConfig19 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.role.dto20 Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal.AppService21 Maruko.Core.Quartz.Controllers22 com.act.core.handler23 com.act.core.web24 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.dictionary25 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.page26 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.role27 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.user28 Cbb.Application.Internal.Services.Imp29 Maruko.Core.Web30 com.act.modules.starmap.config31 com.act.modules.zero.config32 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.operate33 Cbb.Application34 Cbb.Application.Internal.Controllers35 Maruko.Dynamic.Config36 Maruko.TaskScheduling37 Maruko.Zero38 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.menu39 Maruko.Dynamic.Config.Internal.Domain.DomainService.Imp40 com.act.modules.zero.internal.controllers
1 Maruko.Core.Application
2 Maruko.Core.Application.Servers.Dto
3 Maruko.Core.Extensions.Http
4 Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal
5 Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal.Repos
6 Maruko.Core.Modules
7 Maruko.Core.ObjectMapping
8 com.act.core.application
9 com.act.core.domain
10 Cbb.Application.Internal.Domain1
11 Cbb.Application.Internal.Services.DTO1
12 Maruko.Core.Application.Servers2
13 Maruko.Core.Quartz.Internal.Models2
14 com.act.core.utils11
15 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.menu.dto1
16 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.operate.dto1
17 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.page.dto1
18 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.pageConfig21
19 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.role.dto2
20 Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal.AppService4112
21 Maruko.Core.Quartz.Controllers121
22 com.act.core.handler1
23 com.act.core.web41
24 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.dictionary22
25 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.page231
26 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.role4221
27 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.user62
28 Cbb.Application.Internal.Services.Imp11111
29 Maruko.Core.Web1211
30 com.act.modules.starmap.config1
31 com.act.modules.zero.config1
32 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.operate2911
33 Cbb.Application1544141114
34 Cbb.Application.Internal.Controllers1111
35 Maruko.Dynamic.Config43331393
36 Maruko.TaskScheduling32241231
37 Maruko.Zero11146414124
38 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.menu4271121
39 Maruko.Dynamic.Config.Internal.Domain.DomainService.Imp114
40 com.act.modules.zero.internal.controllers71217111111
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 Maruko.Core.Application2 Maruko.Core.Application.Servers.Dto3 Maruko.Core.Extensions.Http4 Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal5 Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal.Repos6 Maruko.Core.Modules7 Maruko.Core.ObjectMapping8 com.act.core.application9 com.act.core.domain10 Cbb.Application.Internal.Domain11 Cbb.Application.Internal.Services.DTO12 Maruko.Core.Application.Servers13 Maruko.Core.Quartz.Internal.Models14 com.act.core.utils15 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.menu.dto16 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.operate.dto17 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.page.dto18 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.pageConfig19 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.role.dto20 Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal.AppService21 Maruko.Core.Quartz.Controllers22 com.act.core.handler23 com.act.core.web24 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.dictionary25 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.page26 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.role27 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.user28 Cbb.Application.Internal.Services.Imp29 Maruko.Core.Web30 com.act.modules.starmap.config31 com.act.modules.zero.config32 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.operate33 Cbb.Application34 Cbb.Application.Internal.Controllers35 Maruko.Dynamic.Config36 Maruko.TaskScheduling37 Maruko.Zero38 com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.menu39 Maruko.Dynamic.Config.Internal.Domain.DomainService.Imp40 com.act.modules.zero.internal.controllersMaruko.Core.Application1Maruko.Core.Application.Servers.Dto2Maruko.Core.Extensions.Http3Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal4Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal.Repos5Maruko.Core.Modules6Maruko.Core.ObjectMapping7com.act.core.application8com.act.core.domain9Cbb.Application.Internal.Domain10Cbb.Application.Internal.Services.DTO11Maruko.Core.Application.Servers12Maruko.Core.Quartz.Internal.Models13com.act.core.utils14com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.menu.dto15com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.operate.dto16com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.page.dto17com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.pageConfig18com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.role.dto19Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal.AppService20Maruko.Core.Quartz.Controllers21com.act.core.handler22com.act.core.web23com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.dictionary24com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.page25com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.role26com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.user27Cbb.Application.Internal.Services.Imp28Maruko.Core.Web29com.act.modules.starmap.config30com.act.modules.zero.config31com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.operate32Cbb.Application33Cbb.Application.Internal.Controllers34Maruko.Dynamic.Config35Maruko.TaskScheduling36Maruko.Zero37com.act.modules.zero.internal.application.menu38Maruko.Dynamic.Config.Internal.Domain.DomainService.Imp39com.act.modules.zero.internal.controllers4011221111121241121211412223142216211111121111291115441411141111433313933224123111146414124427112111471217111111+63 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 40% · Weak · gated by X4, X5 ·

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 8.9 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.3 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 7.6 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.9 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0
The Bad
D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 6.7 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 6.7 X1 · Repo Async correctness 5.5 X3 · Repo Exception handling 5.4
The Ugly
X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 2.8 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 93% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.1 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D23 · .NET / C# Boundary Type-Coupling 9.7 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 7.4 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.2 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 31% · Weak · gated by D34, M1, M2 ·

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 9.2 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 9.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 3.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 2.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 31% · Weak · gated by D13, P1, P3 ·

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 10.0
The Bad
P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P2 · Repo Observability 5.8 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 0.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 49% · Weak · gated by D29, D30 ·

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 9.1 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0
The Bad
C2 · Repo Access Controls 5.0
The Ugly
D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 2.5 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 4.5 S1 · Repo Cryptographic Hygiene 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 60% · Adequate ·

The Bad
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 6.0

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 categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2025 — Injection25High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures22High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures7High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration4High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the seven leaked secrets in configuration files to secure the application, then address the forty-four orphaned files to improve codebase hygiene. Concurrently, expand the README with essential onboarding and architecture details, and increase XML documentation coverage across core projects. Finally, establish a structured ADR folder to record significant design decisions, ensuring future maintainability and clear architectural context.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.+5.6 ptsLowSecret Scanning
Resolve the 44 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with CurdAppService.cs (2), REDACTED, CodeGenerate.Application.cs.+5.1 ptsMediumKnowledge Freshness
Resolve the 2 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with RestSharpMiddleClient.cs, SysMenuService.cs.+2.1 ptsLowExplicit Debt
Resolve the 9 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Maruko.Zero.csproj (3), Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj (3), Maruko.Dynamic.Config.csproj (3).+2.1 ptsLowExplicit Debt
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.+4.2 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Resolve the 14 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Maruko.Core.AutoMapper.csproj, Maruko.Core.FreeSql.csproj, Maruko.Core.Web.csproj.+4.0 ptsMediumDocumentation Quality
Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.+3.6 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+3.1 ptsMediumCI/CD gates

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 73 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 5% slop · 53% mixed · 42% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED0.5SlopDependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
zero/Maruko.Zero/Maruko.Zero.csproj2.2SlopExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
REDACTED2.7SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj2.8SlopExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
REDACTED4.0MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED4.0MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
dynamic/Maruko.Dynamic.Config/Maruko.Dynamic.Config.csproj4.3MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs5.4MixedExplicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
REDACTED5.8MixedSecret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED6.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/Menu/Imp/SysMenuService.cs6.1MixedExplicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
REDACTED6.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED6.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
cbb/Cbb.Application/Cbb.Application.csproj6.5MixedCoupling: Layer violation: Application → Web
src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.DomainIrepos.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.WebApi.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

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

Critical — 41

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

Serious — 206

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

Minor — 129

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

Could not be resolved — 5

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 73 of 77 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 77 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D23D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D43D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6P7PF1PF2PF3S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 356 of 376 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a15fff-e1c6-77b7-9452-bc2ee7cbccfc.

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.

  • D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 14 test(s) behind this row are the ones the C# collector could read, and this repository also carries at least 2 test source file(s) (.java) that it cannot: it parses C# syntax and matches C# test attributes, so a vitest/jest/JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
  • D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) ran but surfaced none of this repository's 14 test method(s) to the runner, so flakiness couldn't be exercised. This is an analysis-environment limitation, not a finding about the tests.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: /usr/share/dotnet/sdk/10.0.400/NuGet.targets(521,5): error MSB3202: The project file "/tmp/WebApplication2/WebApplication2.csproj" was not found. [Maruko.sln].
  • D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Maven POM, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its NuGet package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Maven dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
  • D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. All 47 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 28 of the 283 production source files in this repository: 236 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 19 have no attributable history left to measure.
  • D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Project file not found: '/tmp/WebApplication2/WebApplication2.csproj'.
  • D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 48 deducted marker(s) and the 1.2/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .java (3,108 lines, 21% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
  • D18 Solution Shape — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
  • D27 Navigability — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites, and all 1506 sampled here came from .cs files. This repository's .java source is a material share of its production lines and contributed none, so the score above is a verdict about the part that was read. Not a finding that the unread half navigates well — it is unmeasured.
  • D28 Secrets (history) — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. D28's config-credential rule (WD-SECRET-0002) parses each committed `.json` config as a document and reads credential-named values; `REDACTED` did not parse (JSON5, a template, several concatenated documents), so a credential bound there is UNMEASURED by that rule. gitleaks still scanned the same files as text.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The 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. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (osv) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; nuget was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that nuget is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). the image ran but published no HTTP port — nothing to crawl (EXPOSE the web port to unlock runtime evidence).
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 6 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 46.
  • P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Every other migration runner — DbUp, FluentMigrator, Evolve, Flyway, Liquibase, RoundhousE, a hand-rolled versioned-SQL runner — is invisible to the detector, so an absence here is our blind spot rather than a missing migration strategy in the repository. The card abstains instead of scoring. You can widen what we reach: if the schema is created and evolved by a tool other than EF Core migrations, naming it lets us teach the detector to read it.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 2 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 42.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • 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.
  • 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. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • 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.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
  • 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").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • 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): D19, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was StringExtensions.GetAbstract at 35.

StringExtensions.GetAbstract (cyclomatic 35)src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs:43
RestSharpMiddleClient.ExecuteAsync (cyclomatic 24)src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:38
ImageHelper.ImageScalingByOversized (cyclomatic 17)src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:339

What to do

  1. Bring the 3 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with StringExtensions.GetAbstract (cyclomatic 35), RestSharpMiddleClient.ExecuteAsync (cyclomatic 24), ImageHelper.ImageScalingByOversized (cyclomatic 17). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.9 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. 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.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.7 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

16 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was StringExtensions.GetAbstract at 101.

StringExtensions.GetAbstract (cognitive 101)src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs:43
RestSharpMiddleClient.ExecuteAsync (cognitive 48)src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:38
AssemblyExtensions.GetTypes (cognitive 33)src/Maruko/Extensions/AssemblyExtensions.cs:41
StringExtensions.GetFirstLetterForEachChineseCharacterMultipal (cognitive 25)src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs:192
GAuthenticatorService.getDecodeString (cognitive 25)src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/GoogleAuthenticatorService/GAuthenticatorService.cs:51

+ 11 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 1 body over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with StringExtensions.GetAbstract (cognitive 101). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 6.7 to about 7.3/10.
  2. 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.

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

D3 · God Classes9.3 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

3 god class(es) detected.

ClassTooLong: ImageHelpersrc/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs
TooManyMethods: RedisUtilsact/act-framework/act-framework-core/src/main/java/com/act/core/redis/RedisUtils.java:16
MethodTooLong: ImageHelper.QRCodersrc/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:482

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ImageHelper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with RedisUtils.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ImageHelper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes 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.

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 14 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

14 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (27 lines × 3)src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:121
Duplicated block (28 lines × 2)src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:188
Duplicated block (24–25 lines × 2)REDACTED:162
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2)src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:290
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2)src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:111

+ 9 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (27 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ImageHelper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ImageHelper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (24–25 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication 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 Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D5 · Coupling9.1 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ 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 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Layer violation: Application → Webcbb/Cbb.Application/Cbb.Application.csproj:9
Off the main sequence: Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore · ×2src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Layer violation finding(s) in Coupling — start with Cbb.Application.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling — start with Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj, Maruko.Core.NLog.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 13 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

32 test methods: 32 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The java suite(s) contribute 18 test method(s), read from the language model's own test census — every XCTest `test…` method on an XCTestCase, every swift-testing `@Test` and every JUnit/TestNG `@Test`-annotated method, which is those frameworks' own discovery rule. Their tier split is INFERRED from the test target's name and path only, not declared.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 skipped, 14 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 14 tests (1 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty). Measured on the C# suite only — at least 2 test source file(s) (.java) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

No direct assertions: Map_Test · ×14src/Maruko.Core.Test/AutoMap/MapperTest.cs:21
Test project verifies nothing: Maruko.Core.Testsrc/Maruko.Core.Test/AutoMap/MapperTest.cs:21

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

7 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Secret Scanning 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.

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 264 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 50 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 200 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's NuGet package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Maven POM, and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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.

D17 · Explicit Debt7.6 / 10Adequategated by 11 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

48 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 11964 LoC in the .NET projects (1.2/KLoC) → score 7.6. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped. Measured on the .NET source only: .java (21% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).

NoWarnInCsproj · ×9zero/Maruko.Zero/Maruko.Zero.csproj:21
WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×2src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:20
TodoComment · ×25src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Extensions/AspNetMvcConfigureServicesExtensions.cs:57
CommentedOutCode · ×12REDACTED:90

What to do

  1. Resolve the 9 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Maruko.Zero.csproj (3), Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj (3), Maruko.Dynamic.Config.csproj (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with RestSharpMiddleClient.cs, SysMenuService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 25 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs (8), CodeGenerate.Application.cs (7), CodeGenerate.DomainIrepos.cs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (25 warning-level).
  4. 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.

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

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

12 projects, 257 source files, 9494 hand-written lines of code (8955 production / 539 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), 34 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).

Solution references a project that does not existMaruko.sln

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Solution references a project that does not exist finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with Maruko.sln. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

D19 · Documentation QualityWeak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is a single maruko project overview with links to .NET Core download and MIT license badges plus the one-line description of maruko as an ASP.NET Core single-tenant application framework for new modern web apps. It does not explain what maruko does beyond its own name, lacks installation/build/usage guidance, no architecture/design docs, and is written at a level that is opaque to anyone who has never used an ASP.NET Core project before.

Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Core.AutoMapper · ×14src/Maruko.AutoMapper/Maruko.Core.AutoMapper.csproj
XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Core · ×2src/Maruko/Maruko.Core.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 14 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Maruko.Core.AutoMapper.csproj, Maruko.Core.FreeSql.csproj, Maruko.Core.Web.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).

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

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

2 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Typo in property name: 'UseRoutName' likely intends 'UseRouteName' or 'RouteName'. 'Rout' is not a standard English word.
Inconsistent spelling of 'Repository' across namespaces and types. 'Maruko.SqlSugarCore.Reponsitory' uses a typo ('Reponsitory'), while others use 'Repository' or 'Repos'.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling9.7 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.

Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.

Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.

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

2 domain type(s) cross context boundaries across 16 contexts.

Cross-context type ServiceMethodRequest (Maruko → Maruko.Core.Quartz) · ×2src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/Models/RequestModel.cs:9

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Cross-context type ServiceMethodRequest (Maruko → Maruko.Core.Quartz) finding(s) in Boundary Type-Coupling — start with RequestModel.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Boundary Type-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 Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d23_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

42 valuable / 0 redundant across 197 sampled comments.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md.

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 17 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability7.4 / 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. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

88 % of calls cross a namespace and 25 % go through an interface, but 99 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected. Measured over the .cs source only — this repository's .java was not sampled for call sites, so this score covers part of the tree, not all of it.

Pass-through layerREDACTED:12

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Pass-through layer finding(s) in Navigability — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

25 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 23 medium, 1 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 19 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (7), REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

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

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

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

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

22 finding(s): 6 critical, 12 high, 4 medium, 0 low. Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (osv), and the findings above are real and complete for them. nuget was not scanned (nuget: 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), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 12 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (12). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 6 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 4 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.1 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 2 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

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

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

47 of 47 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs. Counted over 47 of the 283 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×44REDACTED:1
Most significant orphaned file · ×3src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs:1
Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 44 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with CurdAppService.cs (2), REDACTED, CodeGenerate.Application.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (44 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with StringExtensions.cs, ImageHelper.cs, CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
  3. 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.

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

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 1 end-of-life framework(s), read from 20 platform declaration(s) and 8 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.1zero/Maruko.Zero/Maruko.Zero.csproj:4
End-of-life framework: Spring Boot 2act/pom.xml:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with Maruko.Zero.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 End-of-life framework finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

AX10 · Code composition8.2 / 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. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AX6 · Interface 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 declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

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.

C2 · Access Controls5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Authorization IS enforced here (via [Authorize]/guards) — this is NOT a claim that endpoints are unprotected. What's missing is NAMED policies (AddAuthorization/AddPolicy, RequireRole/RequireClaim, RequireAuthorization): the access rules are implicit rather than named and testable. Recommendation, not a defect — name the rules so they're reviewable.
  • [AllowAnonymous] (4) outweighs [Authorize] (3) — review whether the open surface is intended.

What to do

  • Add policy-based authorization — name the access rules (AddAuthorization(o => o.AddPolicy(…))) and apply them via [Authorize(Policy = …)] or RequireAuthorization.
  • Review the [AllowAnonymous] surface — keep anonymous endpoints deliberate and documented so the open surface stays intentional.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 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. (×7) — src/Maruko/ObjectMapping/NullObjectMapper.cs:12, src/Maruko/ObjectMapping/NullObjectMapper.cs:17, src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/UnitOfWork/EfCoreBaseUnitOfWork.cs:117, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `CreateSet` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/UnitOfWork/EfCoreBaseUnitOfWork.cs:117
  • `GetAll` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/Reponsitory/MarukoSugarRepository.cs:52
  • `SugarUnitOfwork` has 3 unfinished members out of 5 declared members (methods, properties, indexers and events, whether or not each carries a body) — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:8
  • `Commit` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:10
  • `CommitAndRefreshChanges` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:15
  • `RollbackChanges` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:26
  • `Map` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — src/Maruko/ObjectMapping/NullObjectMapper.cs:12, src/Maruko/ObjectMapping/NullObjectMapper.cs:17
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×32) — REDACTED:90, REDACTED:91, REDACTED:92, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)2.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • The root README is 8 words, against a bar of 120. Of the three newcomer-critical sections this check looks for by heading, it found no a build/run or getting-started section, no a testing section, no an architecture or project-map section. Sections are matched on HEADING text only, so material written under a heading this check does not recognise — or with no heading at all — is not seen and this row may understate what the document covers.

What to do

  • Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying 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 17 of 17 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
  • No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

  • Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 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.

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • 185/186 types (99%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

What to do

  • Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
P2 · Observability5.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

What to do

  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

  • Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add 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.
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.
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.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, 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; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

  • Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, 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 — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

  • No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this code sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it creates — a bonus, not a requirement.

What to do

  • On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut the allocations those paths would otherwise make.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 0/16 awaits in library code use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.
  • `await client.PostAsync(InterfaceUrl, content)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:76
  • `await resultHttpPost.Content.ReadAsStringAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. (×4) — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:77, src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:137, src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:111, …
  • `await client.GetAsync(InterfaceUrl)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:136
  • `await client.PostAsync(innerUrl, new StringContent(content, Encoding.UTF8, "applica...` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:110
  • `await client.GetAsync(query)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:171
  • `await _collection.InsertOneAsync(entity)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:39
  • `await _collection.InsertManyAsync(items)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:52
  • `await _collection.UpdateManyAsync<TEntity>(expression, updateDefinition)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:60
  • `await SigleOrDefaultAsync(filter)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:78
  • `await _collection.Find(filter).SingleOrDefaultAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:86
  • `await _collection.DeleteManyAsync(Builders<TEntity>.Filter.Empty)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:101
  • `await _collection.Find(filter).ToListAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:116
  • `await _collection.Find(filter).Sort(sort).ToListAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`. — src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:124

What to do

  • In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.
S1 · Cryptographic Hygiene4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Cryptographic hygiene (weak hash/cipher, password key-derivation). This codebase has no web surface, so transport/header/cookie/CSRF controls are N/A and only crypto is scored.

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

  • `item.Password == request.Password` checks a password against the stored one in plaintext, so the store holds the password itself and whoever reads it holds every account. Store a salted KDF hash (PBKDF2/scrypt/Argon2/bcrypt) and verify by deriving again. — zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/User/Imp/SysUserService.cs:63
  • MD5/SHA1 is constructed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ for content integrity, or a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, a file or mutex name), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as `System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32` says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. — src/Maruko/Security/SecurityEncrypt.cs:34

What to do

  • Store passwords with a salted KDF — `Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.PasswordHasher<T>`, `Rfc2898DeriveBytes` (PBKDF2), or BCrypt/Argon2 — and compare with `CryptographicOperations.FixedTimeEquals`. (A fast/plain hash, or a client-hashed value stored and compared verbatim, is not password storage.) Start in `zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/User/Imp/SysUserService.cs:63`.
  • Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (`System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32`) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key or a mutex name.
X1 · Async correctness5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • Reading `.Result` of a task that has not completed blocks this thread until it does — the same block as `.Wait()`: under a synchronization context (Blazor, a UI thread, classic ASP.NET) it deadlocks, and on the thread pool it parks a thread for as long as the work runs. `await` the task instead (make the caller `async`); where a synchronous entry point must stay, keep the block in ONE documented bridge with a timeout. (×4) — REDACTED:115, REDACTED:172, REDACTED:289, …

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result`
X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Only 0/40 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×39) — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:38, src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:86, src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:143, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X3 · Exception handling5.4 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • `throw anEx;` resets the exception's stack trace to this line, hiding where it really came from. Use a bare `throw;` to preserve the original stack. — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:149
  • `throw httpEx;` resets the exception's stack trace to this line, hiding where it really came from. Use a bare `throw;` to preserve the original stack. — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:154
  • `catch` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch. — src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Jwt/TokenValidate.cs:57

What to do

  • Rethrow loses stack trace (`throw ex;`)
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

X4 · Structured logging2.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. (×12) — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:47, src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:78, src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:97, …

What to do

  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • This method contradicts itself about `cookie`: line 279 tests it for null before doing anything with it — the author's own statement that null is an input this code expects — but that `if` scopes only the block beneath it, and line 296 then dereferences `cookie` as `cookie.Add` AFTER the block has closed, where the guard no longer applies. A null `cookie` skips the guarded body and reaches that line anyway, throwing NullReferenceException on exactly the input the guard was written for. If the dereference belongs to the guarded work, move it inside the block; if `cookie` truly cannot be null by then, the guard above is misleading and should go. — REDACTED:296
  • 0/16 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

  • Where a method null-tests a symbol and then uses it after the guarded block closes, move the trailing work inside the block — the guard skips its body on null, it does not stop the method.
  • Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health40%Weak — gated by X4, X5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture93%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity31%Weak — gated by D34, M1, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness31%Weak — gated by D13, P1, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security49%Weak — gated by D29, D30Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance60%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 3 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 41 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 transaction-script/CRUD architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the image ran but published no HTTP port — nothing to crawl (EXPOSE the web port to unlock runtime evidence) This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test runner surfaced no tests
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
  • D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
  • 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 intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); 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.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the target did not build
  • 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: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P8 Schema migrations — EF Core is used, but the schema-migration mechanism could not be identified — this check only recognises EF migrations, so any other migration runner reads as an absence. Our limit, not a verdict on this repository.
  • 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) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 41 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×12
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×9
  • NoWarnInCsproj zero/Maruko.Zero/Maruko.Zero.csproj:21 — 1701 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj:23 — 1701 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj dynamic/Maruko.Dynamic.Config/Maruko.Dynamic.Config.csproj:21 — 1701 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj zero/Maruko.Zero/Maruko.Zero.csproj:21 — 1702 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj:23 — 1702 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj dynamic/Maruko.Dynamic.Config/Maruko.Dynamic.Config.csproj:21 — 1702 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj zero/Maruko.Zero/Maruko.Zero.csproj:21 — 1591 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj dynamic/Maruko.Dynamic.Config/Maruko.Dynamic.Config.csproj:21 — 1591 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj:23 — NETSDK — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×7
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×6
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D17 · Explicit Debt · WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×2
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:20 — private IConfiguration _configuration — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
  • WriteOnlyPrivateField zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/Menu/Imp/SysMenuService.cs:19 — private ILogger<SysMenuService> _logger — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D5 · Coupling · Layer violation · ×1
  • Layer violation: Application → Web cbb/Cbb.Application/Cbb.Application.csproj:9 — Cbb.Application (Application) references Maruko.Core.Web (Web) — dependencies must point inward (Web → Application → Domain; Infrastructure implements inner interfaces, nothing depends outward on it).
S1 · Cryptographic Hygiene · Password hashing without a KDF · ×1
  • Password hashing without a KDF zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/User/Imp/SysUserService.cs:63 — `item.Password == request.Password` checks a password against the stored one in plaintext, so the store holds the password itself and whoever reads it holds every account. Store a salted KDF hash (PBKDF2/scrypt/Argon2/bcrypt) and verify by deriving again.
Serious — 206 finding(s)
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×39
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:38 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: PostAsync src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:86 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetAsync src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:143 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync taskScheduling/Maruko.TaskScheduling/Internal/Controllers/TaskSchedulingController.cs:24 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: CloseAsync taskScheduling/Maruko.TaskScheduling/Internal/Controllers/TaskSchedulingController.cs:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetSchedulerAsync taskScheduling/Maruko.TaskScheduling/Internal/Strategy/StrategyBase.cs:23 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync taskScheduling/Maruko.TaskScheduling/Internal/Strategy/StrategyBase.cs:28 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: CloseAsync taskScheduling/Maruko.TaskScheduling/Internal/Strategy/StrategyBase.cs:68 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetCityOilPrice REDACTED:24 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: SpiderOilAsync REDACTED:31 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetCityOilPrice REDACTED:43 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: SpiderOil REDACTED:63 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetPageData REDACTED:40 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: AddScheduleJobAsync REDACTED:66 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: TriggerExecuteAsync REDACTED:84 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: PauseJobAsync REDACTED:98 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: RemoveJob REDACTED:111 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: QueryJob REDACTED:122 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateJob REDACTED:137 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetJobLogs REDACTED:164 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: StartAsync src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:26 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: AddScheduleJobAsync src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:36 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateJob src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:88 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: StopOrDelScheduleJobAsync src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:97 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ResumeJobAsync src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:105 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • + 14 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×25
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Extensions/AspNetMvcConfigureServicesExtensions.cs:57 — //todo 添加jwt认证 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:13 — //todo 动态生成各种实体的仓储 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.DomainIrepos.cs:13 — //todo 动态生成各种实体的仓储 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:13 — //todo 动态生成各种实体的仓储 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:16 — //todo 生成IService — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:51 — //todo 生成Service — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Controller.cs:14 — //todo 生成Service — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Service.cs:15 — //todo 生成Service — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:89 — //todo 生成dto — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:150 — //todo 生成applicationModule — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:179 — //todo 生成ICurdservice — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:227 — //todo 生成curd实现 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.DomainIrepos.cs:53 — //todo 生成domainModule — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.DomainIrepos.cs:54 — //todo 生成dbcontext上下文 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:183 — //todo 生成dbcontext上下文 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:55 — //todo 生成Module基类 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:89 — //todo 生成基础仓储类 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:122 — //todo 生成工作单元基类 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:136 — //todo 生成自定义主键仓储基类 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:172 — //todo 生成int主键类型仓储基类 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:224 — //todo 生成extension文件夹以及文件 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Service.cs:51 — //todo 生成 IService — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.WebApi.cs:13 — //todo 动态生成各种Controller — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.WebApi.cs:58 — //todo 生成WebApiModule — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.WebApi.cs:87 — //todo 生成extension — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) · ×17
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) — Only 0/16 awaits in library code use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:76 — `await client.PostAsync(InterfaceUrl, content)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:77 — `await resultHttpPost.Content.ReadAsStringAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:136 — `await client.GetAsync(InterfaceUrl)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:137 — `await resultHttpPost.Content.ReadAsStringAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:110 — `await client.PostAsync(innerUrl, new StringContent(content, Encoding.UTF8, "applica...` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:111 — `await resultHttpPost.Content.ReadAsStringAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:171 — `await client.GetAsync(query)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:172 — `await resultHttpPost.Content.ReadAsStringAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:39 — `await _collection.InsertOneAsync(entity)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:52 — `await _collection.InsertManyAsync(items)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:60 — `await _collection.UpdateManyAsync<TEntity>(expression, updateDefinition)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:78 — `await SigleOrDefaultAsync(filter)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:86 — `await _collection.Find(filter).SingleOrDefaultAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:101 — `await _collection.DeleteManyAsync(Builders<TEntity>.Filter.Empty)` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:116 — `await _collection.Find(filter).ToListAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
  • Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false) src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:124 — `await _collection.Find(filter).Sort(sort).ToListAsync()` resumes on the caller's captured context. In library code that context belongs to the host application, so a host that blocks on this call (or runs on a UI thread) can stall or deadlock — append `.ConfigureAwait(false)`.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×14
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Core.AutoMapper src/Maruko.AutoMapper/Maruko.Core.AutoMapper.csproj — Maruko.Core.AutoMapper: 27 % XML-doc coverage (4/15).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Core.FreeSql src/Maruko.FreeSql/Maruko.Core.FreeSql.csproj — Maruko.Core.FreeSql: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/36).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Core.Web src/Maruko.Core.Web/Maruko.Core.Web.csproj — Maruko.Core.Web: 17 % XML-doc coverage (6/36).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Zero zero/Maruko.Zero/Maruko.Zero.csproj — Maruko.Zero: 1 % XML-doc coverage (1/189).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.CodeGeneration src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Maruko.CodeGeneration.csproj — Maruko.CodeGeneration: 13 % XML-doc coverage (2/15).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Dynamic.Config dynamic/Maruko.Dynamic.Config/Maruko.Dynamic.Config.csproj — Maruko.Dynamic.Config: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/73).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.TaskScheduling taskScheduling/Maruko.TaskScheduling/Maruko.TaskScheduling.csproj — Maruko.TaskScheduling: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/53).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Cbb.Application cbb/Cbb.Application/Cbb.Application.csproj — Cbb.Application: 2 % XML-doc coverage (2/95).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Core.NLog src/Maruok.Core.NLog/Maruko.Core.NLog.csproj — Maruko.Core.NLog: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Core.Quartz src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Maruko.Core.Quartz.csproj — Maruko.Core.Quartz: 43 % XML-doc coverage (49/115).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.AspNetMvc src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Maruko.AspNetMvc.csproj — Maruko.AspNetMvc: 40 % XML-doc coverage (46/115).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj — Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore: 10 % XML-doc coverage (4/40).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Hangfire src/Maruko.Hangfire/Maruko.Hangfire.csproj — Maruko.Hangfire: 38 % XML-doc coverage (6/16).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Maruko.SqlSugarCore src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/Maruko.SqlSugarCore.csproj — Maruko.SqlSugarCore: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/24).
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×12
  • CommentedOutCode REDACTED:90 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:129 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode REDACTED:430 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:112 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:133 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Repository/MarukoBaseRepository.cs:131 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:106 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Repository/MarukoBaseRepository.cs:78 — 12 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko.FreeSql/Internal/AppService/CurdAppService.cs:101 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko.FreeSql/Internal/AppService/CurdAppService.cs:107 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko.FreeSql/Internal/AppService/CurdAppService.cs:113 — 35 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Maruko/Security/SecurityEncrypt.cs:17 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code · Unfinished stub · ×7
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko/ObjectMapping/NullObjectMapper.cs:12 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko/ObjectMapping/NullObjectMapper.cs:17 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/UnitOfWork/EfCoreBaseUnitOfWork.cs:117 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/Reponsitory/MarukoSugarRepository.cs:52 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:10 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:15 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:26 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Unfinished stub · ×7
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/UnitOfWork/EfCoreBaseUnitOfWork.cs:117 — `CreateSet` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/Reponsitory/MarukoSugarRepository.cs:52 — `GetAll` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:10 — `Commit` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:15 — `CommitAndRefreshChanges` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:26 — `RollbackChanges` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko/ObjectMapping/NullObjectMapper.cs:12 — `Map` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Maruko/ObjectMapping/NullObjectMapper.cs:17 — `Map` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×4
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
X1 · Async correctness · Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result` · ×4
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result` REDACTED:115 — Reading `.Result` of a task that has not completed blocks this thread until it does — the same block as `.Wait()`: under a synchronization context (Blazor, a UI thread, classic ASP.NET) it deadlocks, and on the thread pool it parks a thread for as long as the work runs. `await` the task instead (make the caller `async`); where a synchronous entry point must stay, keep the block in ONE documented bridge with a timeout.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result` REDACTED:172 — Reading `.Result` of a task that has not completed blocks this thread until it does — the same block as `.Wait()`: under a synchronization context (Blazor, a UI thread, classic ASP.NET) it deadlocks, and on the thread pool it parks a thread for as long as the work runs. `await` the task instead (make the caller `async`); where a synchronous entry point must stay, keep the block in ONE documented bridge with a timeout.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result` REDACTED:289 — Reading `.Result` of a task that has not completed blocks this thread until it does — the same block as `.Wait()`: under a synchronization context (Blazor, a UI thread, classic ASP.NET) it deadlocks, and on the thread pool it parks a thread for as long as the work runs. `await` the task instead (make the caller `async`); where a synchronous entry point must stay, keep the block in ONE documented bridge with a timeout.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Result` REDACTED:295 — Reading `.Result` of a task that has not completed blocks this thread until it does — the same block as `.Wait()`: under a synchronization context (Blazor, a UI thread, classic ASP.NET) it deadlocks, and on the thread pool it parks a thread for as long as the work runs. `await` the task instead (make the caller `async`); where a synchronous entry point must stay, keep the block in ONE documented bridge with a timeout.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type ServiceMethodRequest (Maruko → Maruko.Core.Quartz) · ×2
  • Cross-context type ServiceMethodRequest (Maruko → Maruko.Core.Quartz) src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/Models/RequestModel.cs:9 — ServiceMethodRequest (context Maruko) is exposed in Maruko.Core.Quartz's public surface via RequestModel.ServiceTypeEnum — couples the contexts.
  • Cross-context type ServiceMethodRequest (Maruko → Maruko.Core.Quartz) src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/Models/RequestModel.cs:15 — ServiceMethodRequest (context Maruko) is exposed in Maruko.Core.Quartz's public surface via RequestModel.RequestType — couples the contexts.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2
  • Off the main sequence: Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.csproj:1 — Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore: abstractness 0.83, instability 1.00, distance 0.83 — zone of uselessness — abstract and unstable, so it's likely unused.
  • Off the main sequence: Maruko.Core.NLog src/Maruok.Core.NLog/Maruko.Core.NLog.csproj:1 — Maruko.Core.NLog: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.20, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
X3 · Exception handling · Rethrow loses stack trace (`throw ex;`) · ×2
  • Rethrow loses stack trace (`throw ex;`) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:149 — `throw anEx;` resets the exception's stack trace to this line, hiding where it really came from. Use a bare `throw;` to preserve the original stack.
  • Rethrow loses stack trace (`throw ex;`) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:154 — `throw httpEx;` resets the exception's stack trace to this line, hiding where it really came from. Use a bare `throw;` to preserve the original stack.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · StringExtensions.GetAbstract (cyclomatic 35) · ×1
  • StringExtensions.GetAbstract (cyclomatic 35) src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs:43 — StringExtensions.GetAbstract has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RestSharpMiddleClient.ExecuteAsync (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • RestSharpMiddleClient.ExecuteAsync (cyclomatic 24) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:38 — RestSharpMiddleClient.ExecuteAsync has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ImageHelper.ImageScalingByOversized (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • ImageHelper.ImageScalingByOversized (cyclomatic 17) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:339 — ImageHelper.ImageScalingByOversized has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D18 · Solution Shape · Solution references a project that does not exist · ×1
  • Solution references a project that does not exist Maruko.sln — `Maruko.sln` declares 1 project file(s) that are missing from the tree (`WebApplication2.csproj`). A solution-level restore or build fails on a dangling reference, so anyone building the solution rather than an individual project is blocked. Delete the stale entry from the solution, or restore the missing project file.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StringExtensions.GetAbstract (cognitive 101) · ×1
  • StringExtensions.GetAbstract (cognitive 101) src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs:43 — StringExtensions.GetAbstract has cognitive complexity 101 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs holds 2 of the 16 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 96 of the 203 points over it (47%), 2.9× the next-largest file (src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs at 33). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RestSharpMiddleClient.ExecuteAsync (cognitive 48) · ×1
  • RestSharpMiddleClient.ExecuteAsync (cognitive 48) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:38 — RestSharpMiddleClient.ExecuteAsync has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AssemblyExtensions.GetTypes (cognitive 33) · ×1
  • AssemblyExtensions.GetTypes (cognitive 33) src/Maruko/Extensions/AssemblyExtensions.cs:41 — AssemblyExtensions.GetTypes has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StringExtensions.GetFirstLetterForEachChineseCharacterMultipal (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • StringExtensions.GetFirstLetterForEachChineseCharacterMultipal (cognitive 25) src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs:192 — StringExtensions.GetFirstLetterForEachChineseCharacterMultipal has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs holds 2 of the 16 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 96 of the 203 points over it (47%), 2.9× the next-largest file (src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs at 33). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GAuthenticatorService.getDecodeString (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • GAuthenticatorService.getDecodeString (cognitive 25) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/GoogleAuthenticatorService/GAuthenticatorService.cs:51 — GAuthenticatorService.getDecodeString has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ImageHelper.QRCoder (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • ImageHelper.QRCoder (cognitive 25) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:482 — ImageHelper.QRCoder has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Utils.IsEnumValue (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • Utils.IsEnumValue (cognitive 25) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/Utils.cs:254 — Utils.IsEnumValue has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ImageHelper.ImageScalingByOversized (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • ImageHelper.ImageScalingByOversized (cognitive 22) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:339 — ImageHelper.ImageScalingByOversized has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Tools.GetLoaclBankCardInfo (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Tools.GetLoaclBankCardInfo (cognitive 19) REDACTED:222 — Tools.GetLoaclBankCardInfo has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WrapperExtensions.ConvertToWrapper (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • WrapperExtensions.ConvertToWrapper (cognitive 19) act/act-framework/act-framework-core/src/main/java/com/act/core/utils/WrapperExtensions.java:12 — WrapperExtensions.ConvertToWrapper has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AllCountryOilPriceService.SpiderOil (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • AllCountryOilPriceService.SpiderOil (cognitive 18) REDACTED:63 — AllCountryOilPriceService.SpiderOil has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ImageHelper.ImageMaxCutByCenter (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • ImageHelper.ImageMaxCutByCenter (cognitive 18) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:119 — ImageHelper.ImageMaxCutByCenter has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Utils.DataToDictionary (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • Utils.DataToDictionary (cognitive 17) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/Utils.cs:65 — Utils.DataToDictionary has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.GetAsync (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.GetAsync (cognitive 16) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:143 — WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.GetAsync has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OilPriceJob.Execute (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • OilPriceJob.Execute (cognitive 16) REDACTED:34 — OilPriceJob.Execute has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Tools.GetControllerDesc (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • Tools.GetControllerDesc (cognitive 16) REDACTED:131 — Tools.GetControllerDesc has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: ImageHelper src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs — ClassTooLong — 462 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 14 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 62 over it, 1.16× the bar. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1
  • TooManyMethods: RedisUtils act/act-framework/act-framework-core/src/main/java/com/act/core/redis/RedisUtils.java:16 — TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1
  • MethodTooLong: ImageHelper.QRCoder src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:482 — MethodTooLong — QRCoder runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (27 lines × 3) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:121 — src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:121-147 | src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:234-260 | src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:341-367 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:188 — src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:188-215 | src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:295-322 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:188` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24–25 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (24–25 lines × 2) REDACTED:162 — REDACTED:162-185 | REDACTED:105-129 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:290 — src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:290-313 | src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:401-422 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:290` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:423` calls `Dispose` and `src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:314` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:111 — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:111-130 | src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:173-192 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:111` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:106 — src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:106-117 | src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:219-230 | src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:326-337 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:43 — src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:43-52 | src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:80-90 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:43` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:141 — src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:141-151 | src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.DomainIrepos.cs:44-55 | src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:47-56 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:141` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/Menu/Imp/SysMenuService.cs:179 — zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/Menu/Imp/SysMenuService.cs:179-188 | zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/Menu/Imp/SysMenuService.cs:191-200 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/Menu/Imp/SysMenuService.cs:179` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) cbb/Cbb.Application/Internal/Domain/AppAllCountryOilPrice.cs:9 — cbb/Cbb.Application/Internal/Domain/AppAllCountryOilPrice.cs:9-16 | taskScheduling/Maruko.TaskScheduling/Internal/Domain/AllCountryOilPrice.cs:11-18 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:172 — src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:172-180 | src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:220-228 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:172` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) act/act-modules/act-modules-starmap/src/main/java/com/act/modules/starmap/config/Knife4jConfiguration.java:22 — act/act-modules/act-modules-starmap/src/main/java/com/act/modules/starmap/config/Knife4jConfiguration.java:22-42 | act/act-modules/act-modules-zero/src/main/java/com/act/modules/zero/config/Knife4jConfiguration.java:22-42 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) act/act-modules/act-modules-zero/src/main/java/com/act/modules/zero/internal/application/menu/SysMenuServiceImp.java:51 — act/act-modules/act-modules-zero/src/main/java/com/act/modules/zero/internal/application/menu/SysMenuServiceImp.java:51-60 | act/act-modules/act-modules-zero/src/main/java/com/act/modules/zero/internal/application/menu/SysMenuServiceImp.java:296-304 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `act/act-modules/act-modules-zero/src/main/java/com/act/modules/zero/internal/application/menu/SysMenuServiceImp.java:51` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `act/act-modules/act-modules-zero/src/main/java/com/act/modules/zero/internal/application/menu/SysMenuServiceImp.java:305` calls `setKey`, `getKey` and `act/act-modules/act-modules-zero/src/main/java/com/act/modules/zero/internal/application/menu/SysMenuServiceImp.java:61` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) act/act-modules/act-modules-starmap/src/main/java/com/act/modules/starmap/config/InterceptorConfig.java:1 — act/act-modules/act-modules-starmap/src/main/java/com/act/modules/starmap/config/InterceptorConfig.java:1-29 | act/act-modules/act-modules-zero/src/main/java/com/act/modules/zero/config/InterceptorConfig.java:1-29 — before extracting anything, compare `act/act-modules/act-modules-starmap/src/main/java/com/act/modules/starmap/config/InterceptorConfig.java` and `act/act-modules/act-modules-zero/src/main/java/com/act/modules/zero/config/InterceptorConfig.java` as WHOLE FILES: 95% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `act/act-modules/act-modules-starmap/src/main/java/com/act/modules/starmap/config/InterceptorConfig.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×1
  • End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.1 zero/Maruko.Zero/Maruko.Zero.csproj:4 — zero/Maruko.Zero/Maruko.Zero.csproj declares .NET netcoreapp3.1 as this project's target framework, and .NET Core 3.1 LTS, support ended 2022-12-13. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2022-12-13 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life framework · ×1
  • End-of-life framework: Spring Boot 2 act/pom.xml:1 — act/pom.xml depends on `org.springframework.boot` at a version that pins Spring Boot 2, and Spring Boot 2.x, open-source support ended 2023-11-24. The constraint cannot admit a different major, so this repository stays on it until the declaration is edited. An end-of-life framework receives no further releases, including security releases.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — test suite did not build — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Skeleton type · ×1
  • Skeleton type — most members are unfinished src/Maruko.SqlSugarCore/UnitOfWork/SugarUnitOfwork.cs:8 — `SugarUnitOfwork` has 3 unfinished members out of 5 declared members (methods, properties, indexers and events, whether or not each carries a body) — a scaffolded type that was never implemented.
P1 · CI/CD gates · No CI pipeline · ×1
  • No CI pipeline — No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
S1 · Cryptographic Hygiene · Weak hash algorithm · ×1
  • Weak hash algorithm src/Maruko/Security/SecurityEncrypt.cs:34 — MD5/SHA1 is constructed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ for content integrity, or a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, a file or mutex name), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as `System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32` says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
  • NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×1
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Jwt/TokenValidate.cs:57 — `catch` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.
X5 · Nullable reference types · Null guard scopes only part of the work it protects · ×1
  • Null guard scopes only part of the work it protects REDACTED:296 — This method contradicts itself about `cookie`: line 279 tests it for null before doing anything with it — the author's own statement that null is an input this code expects — but that `if` scopes only the block beneath it, and line 296 then dereferences `cookie` as `cookie.Add` AFTER the block has closed, where the guard no longer applies. A null `cookie` skips the guarded body and reaches that line anyway, throwing NullReferenceException on exactly the input the guard was written for. If the dereference belongs to the guarded work, move it inside the block; if `cookie` truly cannot be null by then, the guard above is misleading and should go.
Minor — 127 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×44
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/Menu/Imp/SysMenuService.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/Utils.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.WebApi.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file zero/Maruko.Zero/Internal/Service/User/Imp/SysUserService.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.FreeSql/Internal/AppService/CurdAppService.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Extensions/AspNetMvcConfigureServicesExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.Core.Web/Internal/BaseStartup.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/GoogleAuthenticatorService/GAuthenticatorService.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko/Application/Servers/CurdAppService.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Jobs/DefaultBackgroundJob.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko/Extensions/Linq/QueryableExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Repository/MarukoBaseRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.MongoDB/MongoDBRepos/MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/UnitOfWork/EfCoreBaseUnitOfWork.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko.Core.Web/Internal/Filters/SwaggerFileUploadFilter.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file taskScheduling/Maruko.TaskScheduling/Internal/Strategy/StrategyBase.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/Maruko/Extensions/ContainerBuilderExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • + 19 more in this group — see findings.md.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×32
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:90 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:91 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:92 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:527 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:75 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:76 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:430 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:431 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:432 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:433 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:71 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:125 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code REDACTED:167 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:112 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:113 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:115 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:129 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:130 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:131 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:134 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:136 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:141 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Internal/QuartzProvider/ScheduleProvider.cs:142 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore/Repository/MarukoBaseRepository.cs:42 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Maruko.FreeSql/Internal/AppService/CurdAppService.cs:78 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • + 7 more in this group — see findings.md.
D10 · Test Quality · No direct assertions · ×14
  • No direct assertions: Map_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/AutoMap/MapperTest.cs:21 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: Create_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/Dynamic.Config/PageTest.cs:18 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: Delete_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/FreeSql/CurdAppServiceTest.cs:24 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: PageSearch_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/FreeSql/CurdAppServiceTest.cs:34 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: FirstOrDefault_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/FreeSql/CurdAppServiceTest.cs:72 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: PageSearch_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/FreeSql/Repository.cs:27 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: GetAllList_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/FreeSql/Repository.cs:47 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: GenerateService_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/Generation/GenerateServiceTest.cs:16 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: Initialize_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/Web/WebTest.cs:18 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: CreateOrEdit_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/Zero/MenuTest.cs:20 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: GetMenusSetRole_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/Zero/MenuTest.cs:38 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: GetMenusByRole_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/Zero/MenuTest.cs:46 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: GetMenuOfOperate_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/Zero/OperateTest.cs:19 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
  • No direct assertions: Login_Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/Zero/UserTest.cs:21 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
X4 · Structured logging · Interpolated log message defeats structured logging · ×12
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:47 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:78 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:97 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:138 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:148 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:153 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:158 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging dynamic/Maruko.Dynamic.Config/Internal/Service/Imp/SysDataDictionaryService.cs:45 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging dynamic/Maruko.Dynamic.Config/Internal/Service/Imp/SysDataDictionaryService.cs:55 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging REDACTED:126 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging REDACTED:182 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/Maruko.Core.Quartz/Jobs/DefaultBackgroundJob.cs:94 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×3
  • Most significant orphaned file src/Maruko/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Most significant orphaned file src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Service/ImageHelper.cs:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Most significant orphaned file src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×3
  • Duplicated predicate src/Maruko.Core.Web/Internal/Filters/SwaggerFileUploadFilter.cs:23 — `!context.ApiDescription.HttpMethod.Equals("POST", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) && !context.ApiDescription.HttpMethod.Equals("PUT", St…` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Maruko.AspNetMvc/Filters/SwaggerFileUploadFilter.cs, src/Maruko.Core.Web/Internal/Filters/SwaggerFileUploadFilter.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs:20 — `File.Exists(fullPath) && !ifExsitedCovered` appears character-identically in 3 files — src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.Application.cs, src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.DomainIrepos.cs, src/Maruko.CodeGeneration/Generate/CodeGenerate.EfCore.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs:111 — `parameters != null && parameters.Count > 0` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/RestSharpMiddleClient.cs, src/Maruko/Extensions/Http/WebUtilsHttpConnectionPool.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
C2 · Access Controls · No named authorization policies · ×1
  • No named authorization policies — Authorization IS enforced here (via [Authorize]/guards) — this is NOT a claim that endpoints are unprotected. What's missing is NAMED policies (AddAuthorization/AddPolicy, RequireRole/RequireClaim, RequireAuthorization): the access rules are implicit rather than named and testable. Recommendation, not a defect — name the rules so they're reviewable.
C2 · Access Controls · Anonymous-heavy surface · ×1
  • Anonymous-heavy surface — [AllowAnonymous] (4) outweighs [Authorize] (3) — review whether the open surface is intended.
D10 · Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing · ×1
  • Test project verifies nothing: Maruko.Core.Test src/Maruko.Core.Test/AutoMap/MapperTest.cs:21 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 14 of 14 tests in `Maruko.Core.Test` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
D21 · Naming Consistency · Typo in property name · ×1
  • Typo in property name: 'UseRoutName' likely intends 'UseRouteName' or 'RouteName'. 'Rout' is not a standard English word. — Rename to 'RouteName' or 'UseRouteName'. (symbols: Property: public string Maruko.Core.Quartz.Internal.Models.RequestModel.UseRoutName, Property: public string Maruko.Core.Quartz.Internal.Models.RequestModel.UseRoutName)
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent spelling of 'Repository' across namespaces and types. 'Maruko.SqlSugarCore.Reponsitory' uses a typo ('Reponsitory'), while others use 'Repository' or 'Repos'. · ×1
  • Inconsistent spelling of 'Repository' across namespaces and types. 'Maruko.SqlSugarCore.Reponsitory' uses a typo ('Reponsitory'), while others use 'Repository' or 'Repos'. — Correct the namespace to 'Maruko.SqlSugarCore.Repository'. (symbols: Namespace: Maruko.SqlSugarCore.Reponsitory, Type: Maruko.Core.FreeSql.Internal.Repos.IFreeSqlRepository, Type: Maruko.EntityFrameworkCore.Repository.MarukoRepositoryBase)
D27 · Navigability · Pass-through layer · ×1
  • Pass-through layer REDACTED:12 — SysUserController: all 3 public methods forward their arguments unchanged to _user and add no behaviour — an extra hop (and usually an extra interface) to trace through. Call _user directly, or give the layer a job.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 47 of 47 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 47 separate risks. Counted over 47 of the 283 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
M1 · Documentation (README) · Thin README · ×1
  • Thin README — The root README is 8 words, against a bar of 120. Of the three newcomer-critical sections this check looks for by heading, it found no a build/run or getting-started section, no a testing section, no an architecture or project-map section. Sections are matched on HEADING text only, so material written under a heading this check does not recognise — or with no heading at all — is not seen and this row may understate what the document covers.
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
  • No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1
  • Large public API surface — 185/186 types (99%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No rollback/health safety · ×1
  • No rollback/health safety — Deployment 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.
P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1
  • No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
PF1 · Benchmark discipline · No performance benchmarks · ×1
  • No performance benchmarks — No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene · No allocation-aware APIs detected · ×1
  • No allocation-aware APIs detected — No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this code sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it creates — a bonus, not a requirement.
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1
  • Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 0/40 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
X5 · Nullable reference types · Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere · ×1
  • Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 0/16 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
Minor — 2 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×2
  • XML-doc coverage: Maruko.Core src/Maruko/Maruko.Core.csproj — Maruko.Core: 51 % XML-doc coverage (108/213).
  • XML-doc coverage: Maruko.MongoDB src/Maruko.MongoDB/Maruko.MongoDB.csproj — Maruko.MongoDB: 65 % XML-doc coverage (17/26).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-1b6accd93cf447868434ca4a18cab633/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-1b6accd93cf447868434ca4a18cab633/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .25artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnuget—nuget: not applicable — nuget: 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 scan0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .22artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .4artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-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 Confinementruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .0artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a15fff-e1c6-77b7-9452-bc2ee7cbccfc · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 41 · Warnings: 206 · Recommendations: 127 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 21-10-2026 @ 19:46 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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