BlazorWebAppServiceOrders — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

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

potlitel/BlazorWebAppServiceOrders carries serious risk (30%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Architecture (93%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (9%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Maturity (40%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup).

For scale: Small (~9,439 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (93%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 48% Weak · gated by D17 Architecture 93% Adequate · gated by D26 Maturity 40% Weak · gated by M2 Readiness 9% ⚠ Critical · gated by D8, D9, D13, P1, P2, P3, P5, P7 Security 69% Adequate · gated by D28 Accessibility 46% Weak · gated by AC4

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Readiness 9% · 46% weightMaturity 40% · 25% weightAccessibility 46% · 14% weightCode Health 48% · 8% weightSecurity 69% · 4% weightArchitecture 93% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 9 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 30 → ~48.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 26%Plumbing 68%Generated 7%

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €3,300–€17,000

Cost to rebuild	€3,300–€17,000 (0.1 person-years (55–175 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 30% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · 34% boilerplate · 39% straight-line · 27% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€10,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 9% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — service/app × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs, AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs, AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs.

+17.1 pts · Low effort · Secret Scanning

Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.

+17.1 pts · Low effort · Code Coverage

Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.

+17.1 pts · Low effort · Test Distribution

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 9%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (9,439 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 9%

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

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Trajectory

The Ugly

AC4 · Repo Keyboard semantics 1.0 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	12	High / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, establish a CI/CD pipeline to build and test on every push or pull request. Next, implement structured logging and health checks to improve observability across all services. Then, define and document disaster recovery procedures, including backups and recovery time objectives. Finally, address outbound HTTP resilience by adding retry policies to HTTP clients, and immediately resolve the four leaked secrets found in the codebase.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs, AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs, AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs.	+17.1 pts	Low	Secret Scanning
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.	+17.1 pts	Low	Code Coverage
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.	+17.1 pts	Low	Test Distribution
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.	+19.1 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.	+19.1 pts	Medium	Observability
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.	+19.1 pts	Medium	DR & Backup
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.	+18.4 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.	+17.1 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 42 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 29% slop · 52% mixed · 19% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_TaskDocument/AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs	0.0	Slop	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: jwt
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs	0.0	Slop	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: jwt
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Supply/AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs	0.0	Slop	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: jwt
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Document/AddEditSODocument.razor.cs	0.5	Slop	Secrets (history): Secret: jwt
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderTaskDocument.razor.cs	1.9	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Register/AddEditSORegisterComponent.razor.cs	2.1	Slop	Secrets (history): Secret: jwt
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs	2.6	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs	2.6	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Feature/AddEditSOFeatureComponent.razor.cs	3.0	Slop	Secrets (history): Secret: jwt
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentType/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs	3.2	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/AddEditServiceOrderTaskComponent.razor.cs	3.6	Slop	Secrets (history): Secret: jwt
BlazorWebApp/Dockerfile	3.7	Slop	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: azure-devops-pat
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs	4.1	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs	4.1	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/ServiceOrderTaskDocumentDetailsComponent.razor.cs	4.1	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderFeature.razor.cs	4.2	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskState/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs	4.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderType/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs	4.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperation/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs	4.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs	4.9	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock

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. 52 of 55 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — 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 — 55 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D26D28D29D31D34D35AC1AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P7S1X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 156 of 171 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f1571-0a9c-7e4a-8a54-06805d20ee4b.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
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".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.

The LLM boundary

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

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

11 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) · ×3RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:175

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskState/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:143

Duplicated block (30 lines × 2)RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderTaskDocument.razor.cs:194

Duplicated block (15 lines × 4)RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentType/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:201

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)RazorClassLibrary1/Services/HttpClientSrv/ServiceOrders/GetByExecutor/GetServiceOrderByExecutorService.cs:21

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: RazorClassLibrary1

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.4 / 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 37 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent (LCOM4 4) · ×2RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_TaskDocument/AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs:14

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D8 · Code Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.

Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.

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

No automated tests — the solution has no test code.

No automated tests

What to do

Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No test projects found.

No tests found

What to do

Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

4 secret(s) detected.

Leaked secret: azure-devops-pat · ×4BlazorWebApp/Dockerfile:29

What to do

Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs, AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs, AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 3 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

36 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is RazorClassLibrary1/Services/FSASOCustomDialogService.cs.

Small-team knowledge concentration

What to do

Resolve the 1 Small-team knowledge concentration finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

125 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 9439 LoC (5.4/KLoC) → score 0.0.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×35RazorClassLibrary1/Components/Shared/GenericDataGrid.razor.cs:68

NoWarnInCsproj · ×6RazorClassLibrary1/RazorClassLibrary1.csproj:8

CommentedOutCode · ×82RazorClassLibrary1/Components/Shared/CultureSelectorComponent.razor.cs:49

BareSuppressMessageRazorClassLibrary1/GlobalSuppressions.cs:8

TodoCommentRazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderDocument.razor.cs:231

What to do

Resolve the 82 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs (6), GetAllDocumentTypesResponse.cs (6), ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (82 warning-level).
Resolve the 35 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs (4), AddEditSODocument.razor.cs (2), AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (35 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with RazorClassLibrary1.csproj (4), BlazorWebApp.csproj, BlazorWebAssemblyApp.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape7.3 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 projects, 177 .cs files, 9439 hand-written lines of code (9439 production / 0 test), plus 687 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 1 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).

Shell project: BlazorWebAssemblyAppBlazorWebAssemblyApp/BlazorWebAssemblyApp.csproj

Build status unknown

What to do

Resolve the 1 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with BlazorWebAssemblyApp.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Strong◐ 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 Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The README is clear and complete for a Blazor web app project: it introduces the platform purpose, lists tech stack components with links, enumerates features, shows run-local commands, fixes a specific warning, and covers Docker deployment. The two READMEs are focused on UI/Blazor-specific topics but both document their own platforms (service orders vs Open Iconic) well. However, there is a gap between the visible content and the outlined architecture/design docs: the XML-doc coverage for the RazorClassLibrary1 project is 2% (only one of 539 methods documented), while BlazorWebAssemblyApp has zero coverage despite being a Blazor app; this suggests the referenced architecture documents are not yet populated, so those sections should be added rather than assumed missing.

XML-doc coverage: RazorClassLibrary1 · ×3RazorClassLibrary1/RazorClassLibrary1.csproj

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The README is clear and complete for a Blazor web app project: it introduces the platform purpose, lists tech stack components with links, enumerates features, shows run-local commands, fixes a specific warning, and covers Docker deployment. The two READMEs are focused on UI/Blazor-specific topics but both document their own platforms (service orders vs Open Iconic) well. However, there is a gap between the visible content and the outlined architecture/design docs: the XML-doc coverage for the RazorClassLibrary1 project is 2% (only one of 539 methods documented), while BlazorWebAssemblyApp has zero coverage despite being a Blazor app; this suggests the referenced architecture documents are not yet populated, so those sections should be added rather than assumed missing.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Strong◐ 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 Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

3 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Inconsistent pluralization of 'Service' in namespace/type names: 'ServicesOrders' vs 'ServiceOrders'. One uses 'ServicesOrders' (pluralizing both words or a typo), while others consistently use 'ServiceOrders' (singular 'Service', plural 'Orders').

Inconsistent pluralization of 'Service' in the namespace and type names: 'ServicesOrders' vs 'ServiceOrders'.

Inconsistent abbreviation for 'ServiceOrderRegister': 'SO' is used in the service name ('SORegister') but 'Register' is used in the request name. Other services use full names or consistent abbreviations.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent pluralization of 'Service' in namespace/type names finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent pluralization of 'Service' in the namespace and type names finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent abbreviation for 'ServiceOrderRegister' finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion3.3 / 10Weak✓ 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 3.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 3 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split RazorClassLibrary1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Split RazorClassLibrary1 finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

7 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

Secret: jwt · ×7RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_TaskDocument/AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs:45detected by gitleaks finding

Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed

What to do

Resolve the 7 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with AddEditSODocument.razor.cs, AddEditSOFeatureComponent.razor.cs, AddEditSORegisterComponent.razor.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

High IaC: DS-0002BlazorWebApp/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

Low IaC: DS-0026BlazorWebApp/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness6.7 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

12 of 36 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/ServiceOrderTaskDocumentDetailsComponent.razor.cs.

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs↔ServiceOrderDocument.razor.cs 50%

Change coupling: ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs ↔ ServiceOrderDocument.razor.csRazorClassLibrary1/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC1 · Text alternatives10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC2 · Forms & labels10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. (×3) — _Host.cshtml:0, App.razor:0, Page1.cshtml:0
The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). — Page1.cshtml:0
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. — Page1.cshtml:0
An iframe with no title (or an empty one) is announced only as "frame". Add a non-empty title describing its content, or an aria-label. — DynamicIframe.razor:3

What to do

Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC4 · Keyboard semantics1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. (×2) — _Host.cshtml:29, index.html:27
A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. (×3) — NavMenu.razor:8, NavMenu.razor:9, NavMenu.razor:10

What to do

Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC5 · ARIA correctness6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

This is not a valid WAI-ARIA attribute, so assistive technology ignores it (usually a typo). Use the correct aria-* attribute. — AddEditSODocument.razor:34

What to do

Use valid, non-abstract roles, supply the ARIA state each role requires, and never put aria-hidden on a focusable element.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

A CSS rule's foreground/background colour pair falls below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. (×3) — NavMenu.razor.css:0, NavMenu.razor.css:0, site.css:0

What to do

Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse wired into tests or CI — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI, graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`ExecuteToAction` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — SO_TasksComponent.razor.cs:191
`FetchIssues` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — GitHubService.cs:106
`OnGet` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — Page1.cshtml.cs:8
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×27) — CultureSelectorComponent.razor.cs:49, CultureSelectorComponent.razor.cs:50, CultureSelectorComponent.razor.cs:104, …

What to do

Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 3 of 3 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
Only 1/3 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy7.0 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

README omits the BlazorWebAssemblyApp project
omits RazorClassLibrary1 (the dashboard model / service projects)
README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README omits the BlazorWebAssemblyApp project; omits RazorClassLibrary1 (the dashboard model / service projects); README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.

What to do

Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation 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.

Only 0/83 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:117, DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:117, ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:118, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling5.3 / 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.

An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×25) — GenericDataGrid.razor.cs:68, GenericDataGrid.razor.cs:166, AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:125, …

What to do

Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types7.7 / 10Strong✓ 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.

~2.9 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC1 · Text alternatives	1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5	Partial signal
AC2 · Forms & labels	1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics	2.1.1, 2.4.3	Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness	4.1.2	Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety	1.4.3, 2.4.7	Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 40 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	48%	Weak — gated by D17	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	93%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	40%	Weak — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	9%	Critical — gated by D8, D9, D13, P1, P2, P3, P5, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	69%	Adequate — gated by D28	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility	46%	Weak — gated by AC4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

Not included — 40 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.

AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
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.
C2 Access Controls — Partial workspace load — the web/host project 'BlazorServerApp' present on disk did not load into the C# workspace (it failed to build/restore and was silently dropped), so its authorization signals were never scanned. The surviving documents carry no evidence for this control, but absence of evidence in an INCOMPLETE document set is not evidence the control is missing — the relevant middleware/attributes most plausibly live in the dropped project. This dimension is therefore Not-evidenced (excluded from the score) rather than asserting a confident negative. Restore/build that project (see diagnostics.md) so it loads and the dimension can be scored.
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.
D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 9439 LoC the codebase is small despite three projects and no boundaries declared, so explicit bounded-context boundaries are not needed.
D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
X8 JS interop contract — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 54 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×35

EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Components/Shared/GenericDataGrid.razor.cs:68 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Components/Shared/GenericDataGrid.razor.cs:166 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:125 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:137 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:152 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:164 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentType/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:112 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:112 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskState/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:113 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:117 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderType/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs:112 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs:109 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperation/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs:121 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs:117 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Details/SO_DocumentsDetailsComponent.razor.cs:120 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Details/SO_RegistersComponent.razor.cs:128 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Details/SO_TasksComponent.razor.cs:130 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Document/AddEditSODocument.razor.cs:81 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Document/AddEditSODocument.razor.cs:94 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Feature/AddEditSOFeatureComponent.razor.cs:67 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Register/AddEditSORegisterComponent.razor.cs:84 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Supply/AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs:107 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Supply/AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs:120 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/AddEditServiceOrderTaskComponent.razor.cs:94 — empty catch block
EmptyCatchBlock RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/AddEditServiceOrderTaskComponent.razor.cs:107 — empty catch block
+ 10 more in this group — see findings.md.

D28 · Secrets (history) · Secret · ×7

Secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_TaskDocument/AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs:45 — matched rule 'jwt'
Secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:50 — matched rule 'jwt'
Secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/AddEditServiceOrderTaskComponent.razor.cs:37 — matched rule 'jwt'
Secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Feature/AddEditSOFeatureComponent.razor.cs:38 — matched rule 'jwt'
Secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Register/AddEditSORegisterComponent.razor.cs:38 — matched rule 'jwt'
Secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Supply/AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs:43 — matched rule 'jwt'
Secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Document/AddEditSODocument.razor.cs:46 — matched rule 'jwt'

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×6

NoWarnInCsproj RazorClassLibrary1/RazorClassLibrary1.csproj:8 — NU1900
NoWarnInCsproj BlazorWebAssemblyApp/BlazorWebAssemblyApp.csproj:7 — NU1900
NoWarnInCsproj BlazorWebApp/BlazorWebApp.csproj:9 — NU1900
NoWarnInCsproj RazorClassLibrary1/RazorClassLibrary1.csproj:9 — RZ10012
NoWarnInCsproj RazorClassLibrary1/RazorClassLibrary1.csproj:10 — CS8767
NoWarnInCsproj RazorClassLibrary1/RazorClassLibrary1.csproj:11 — CS8618

D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×4

Leaked secret: azure-devops-pat BlazorWebApp/Dockerfile:29 — azure-devops-pat detected.
Leaked secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:50 — jwt detected.
Leaked secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_TaskDocument/AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs:45 — jwt detected.
Leaked secret: jwt RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Supply/AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs:43 — jwt detected.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×1

High IaC: DS-0002 BlazorWebApp/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'

D8 · Code Coverage · No automated tests · ×1

No automated tests — No automated tests — the solution has no test code. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely.

Warning — 100 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×82

CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Components/Shared/CultureSelectorComponent.razor.cs:49 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Helpers/ResultSO.cs:109 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Helpers/ResultSO.cs:119 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Helpers/ResultSO.cs:124 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Helpers/ResultSO.cs:129 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/AddEditServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:58 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Document/AddEditSODocument.razor.cs:162 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Feature/AddEditSOFeatureComponent.razor.cs:75 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Register/AddEditSORegisterComponent.razor.cs:92 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Supply/AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs:67 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_TaskDocument/AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs:53 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:262 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Services/HttpClientSrv/DocumentTypes/GetAll/GetAllDocumentTypesResponse.cs:13 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Services/HttpClientSrv/ServicesOrdersDocuments/DownloadAsStream/DownloadServiceOrderDocumentAsStreamService.cs:37 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Dtos/DocumentTypeDto.cs:8 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:126 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:131 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs:123 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs:131 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Document/AddEditSODocument.razor.cs:155 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Register/AddEditSORegisterComponent.razor.cs:58 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Supply/AddEditSOSupplyComponent.razor.cs:79 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/ServiceOrderTaskDocumentDetailsComponent.razor.cs:144 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_TaskDocument/AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs:61 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderFeature.razor.cs:125 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
+ 57 more in this group — see findings.md.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:175 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:175-205 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs:180-210
Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:180 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:180-210 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs:172-202
Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderTaskDocument.razor.cs:133 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderTaskDocument.razor.cs:133-163 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/ServiceOrderTaskDocumentDetailsComponent.razor.cs:136-166

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskState/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:143 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskState/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:143-151 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:147-155
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderType/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs:142 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderType/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs:142-150 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs:139-147
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperation/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs:151 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperation/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs:151-159 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs:147-155

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2

Low cohesion: AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent (LCOM4 4) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_TaskDocument/AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent.razor.cs:14 — AddEditSOTaskDocumentComponent's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: HttpClientServiceBase (LCOM4 4) RazorClassLibrary1/Services/HttpClientServiceBase.cs:7 — HttpClientServiceBase's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.

D17 · Explicit Debt · BareSuppressMessage · ×1

BareSuppressMessage RazorClassLibrary1/GlobalSuppressions.cs:8 — SuppressMessage

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×1

TodoComment RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderDocument.razor.cs:231 — //TODO: Crear/Invocar el servicio que retorna la url de documento seleccionado incluyendo el token con permisos de lectura. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.notable[3].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 877.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1

Change coupling: ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs ↔ ServiceOrderDocument.razor.cs RazorClassLibrary1/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs — `RazorClassLibrary1/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs` and `RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderDocument.razor.cs` change together 50% of the time (9 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderTaskDocument.razor.cs:194 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderTaskDocument.razor.cs:194-223 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/ServiceOrderTaskDocumentDetailsComponent.razor.cs:197-226

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentType/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:201 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentType/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:201-215 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskState/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:200-214 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderType/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs:199-213 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperation/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs:208-222

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) RazorClassLibrary1/Services/HttpClientSrv/ServiceOrders/GetByExecutor/GetServiceOrderByExecutorService.cs:21 — RazorClassLibrary1/Services/HttpClientSrv/ServiceOrders/GetByExecutor/GetServiceOrderByExecutorService.cs:21-34 | RazorClassLibrary1/Services/HttpClientSrv/ServiceOrders/GetByOwner/GetServiceOrderByOwnerService.cs:19-32

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 12) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 12) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentType/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:124 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentType/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:124-135 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderTaskState/ServiceOrderTaskStateComponent.razor.cs:124-135 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/ServiceOrderType/ServiceOrderTypeComponent.razor.cs:123-134 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/SupplyOperation/SupplyOperationComponent.razor.cs:132-143 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderComponent.razor.cs:167-178 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderDocument.razor.cs:151-162 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/ServiceOrderRegister.razor.cs:135-146 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Details/SO_DocumentsDetailsComponent.razor.cs:131-142 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Details/SO_RegistersComponent.razor.cs:139-150 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Details/SO_TasksComponent.razor.cs:140-151 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/SO_Task/ServiceOrderTaskComponent.razor.cs:151-162 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Supply.razor.cs:153-164

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentType/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:143 — RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentType/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:143-152 | RazorClassLibrary1/Pages/Masters/DocumentTypeComponent.razor.cs:142-150

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: RazorClassLibrary1 — RazorClassLibrary1: abstractness 0.18, instability 0.00, distance 0.82 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.

Recommendation — 12 finding(s)

D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1

Test reliability not included — No test projects found, so reliability couldn't be assessed.

D16 · Bus Factor · Small-team knowledge concentration · ×1

Small-team knowledge concentration — 36 file(s) are concentrated to one author — the ambient state with 2 active author(s), not 36 separate risks. The signal becomes meaningful as ownership spreads; no per-file action implied now.

D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×1

Shell project: BlazorWebAssemblyApp BlazorWebAssemblyApp/BlazorWebAssemblyApp.csproj — `BlazorWebAssemblyApp` contributes only 8 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.

D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent pluralization of 'Service' in namespace/type names · ×1

Inconsistent pluralization of 'Service' in namespace/type names: 'ServicesOrders' vs 'ServiceOrders'. One uses 'ServicesOrders' (pluralizing both words or a typo), while others consistently use 'ServiceOrders' (singular 'Service', plural 'Orders'). — Standardize to 'ServiceOrders' (singular Service, plural Orders) to match the rest of the codebase. (symbols: RazorClassLibrary1.Services.HttpClientSrv.ServicesOrdersDocuments.GetAll.IGetAllServiceOrderDocumentsBySOIdService, RazorClassLibrary1.Services.HttpClientSrv.ServicesOrdersDocuments.GetAllServicesOrdersDocumentsRequest)

D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent pluralization of 'Service' in the namespace and type names · ×1

Inconsistent pluralization of 'Service' in the namespace and type names: 'ServicesOrders' vs 'ServiceOrders'. — Standardize to 'ServiceOrders'. (symbols: RazorClassLibrary1.Services.HttpClientSrv.ServicesOrdersDocuments.GetAllServicesOrdersDocumentsRequest, RazorClassLibrary1.Services.HttpClientSrv.ServicesOrdersDocuments.GetAllBySOId.IGetServiceOrderDocumentsBySOIdService)

D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent abbreviation for 'ServiceOrderRegister' · ×1

Inconsistent abbreviation for 'ServiceOrderRegister': 'SO' is used in the service name ('SORegister') but 'Register' is used in the request name. Other services use full names or consistent abbreviations. — Standardize to 'ServiceOrderRegister' or 'SORegister' consistently. (symbols: RazorClassLibrary1.Services.HttpClientSrv.ServiceOrderRegisters.GetCurrent.GetCurrentSORegisterByIdService, RazorClassLibrary1.Services.HttpClientSrv.ServiceOrderRegisters.GetCurrent.GetCurrentSORegisterByIdRequest)

D26 · Project Cohesion · Split RazorClassLibrary1 · ×1

Split RazorClassLibrary1 — A razor class library whose name alone implies it is a single concern but the project is huge and spans 61 unrelated namespaces. Suggested: by namespace: RazorCore, RazorHelpers, RazorTemplates

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — Some of these secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each historically-exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks. (Working-tree-only secrets — no commit — can instead be removed from the file and moved to a secret store.)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1

Low IaC: DS-0026 BlazorWebApp/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1

Further orphaned files (smaller) — 12 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than listed individually (12 orphaned of 36 analysed files in total).

D9 · Test Distribution · No tests found · ×1

No tests found — No test projects found in the repository.

Info — 5 finding(s)

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×3

XML-doc coverage: RazorClassLibrary1 RazorClassLibrary1/RazorClassLibrary1.csproj — RazorClassLibrary1: 2 % XML-doc coverage (11/539).
XML-doc coverage: BlazorWebApp BlazorWebApp/BlazorWebApp.csproj — BlazorWebApp: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/22).
XML-doc coverage: BlazorWebAssemblyApp BlazorWebAssemblyApp/BlazorWebAssemblyApp.csproj — BlazorWebAssemblyApp: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).

D18 · Solution Shape · Build status unknown · ×1

Build status unknown — The build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1

No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	7	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	2	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.	0	—

Run 019f1571-0a9c-7e4a-8a54-06805d20ee4b · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 1 field(s) across 1 category, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Phone — 1 field(s)

SideBarHelper.IsMobile RazorClassLibrary1/Helpers/SideBarHelper.cs:6

Potlitel/BlazorWebAppServiceOrders

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Trajectory

Architecture — module dependency graph

At a glance — Code Health · 48% · Weak · gated by D17

At a glance — Architecture · 93% · Adequate · gated by D26

At a glance — Maturity · 40% · Weak · gated by M2

At a glance — Readiness · 9% · Critical · gated by D8, D9, D13, P1, P2, P3, P5, P7

At a glance — Security · 69% · Adequate · gated by D28

At a glance — Accessibility · 46% · Weak · gated by AC4

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Downloadable artifacts