Executive summary
project-everest/vale scores 44 out of 100 and is rated Weak, while three of its five lenses score higher still: Architecture at 100, Security and Compliance at 97 and Code Health at 95, all rated Exemplary. The project hasn't declared a stable release yet, so its lenses are rated against a lower bar than a released product's, while the score itself is worked out as for any repository.
The score is lower than those three because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 18 and is rated Weak. Its Code Coverage dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage and to resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 44 to about 62.
13 findings are critical: eight in Knowledge Freshness, four in IaC & Container Security and one in Code Coverage.
Watchdog couldn't measure 7 dimensions in this code, among them Cyclomatic Complexity, Cognitive Complexity and Dependency Hygiene, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 11,744 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €9,800, to rebuild.
Code Health
95 ★
Exemplary
Architecture
100 ★
Exemplary
Maturity
38
Weak, capped by Knowledge Freshness and Architecture documentation
Production Readiness
18
Weak, capped by Code Coverage, Test Distribution, CI/CD gates and Security & performance tooling
Security and Compliance
97 ★
Exemplary
How the score is built: what each lens counts for
The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Production Readiness 18 · counts for 47%Maturity 38 · counts for 26%Code Health 95 · counts for 14%Security and Compliance 97 · counts for 8%Architecture 100 · counts for 4%
If Production Readiness rose from 18 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 44 to about 62.
Code composition: what the lines of code are
Business logic 34%Supporting code 66%
Rebuild cost: about €9,800 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €3,300 to €16,000, for 54 to 172 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | Low, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write. |
| Quality factor | ×0.7 at a score of 44. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it. |
| Size | Small: 11,744 lines of product code |
| Comment lines | The estimate prices 11,667 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 11,744 lines but aren't priced as work. |
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Resolve the 9 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with emit_common_quick_code.fs, main.fs, emit_vale_text.fs.
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Where the investment is most exposed
This code would cost about €9,800 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 18 (Critical). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
If you do one thing first
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 17 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 Code Coverage findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 Ast | 2 DafnyInterface | 3 doc.rtd.vale_pygments | 4 tools.scripts | 5 tools.scripts.interact | 6 Ast_util | 7 Emit_dafny_direct | 8 Parse_util | 9 TypeChecker | 10 Emit_common_base | 11 Emit_common_lemmas | 12 Emit_common_quick_code | 13 Emit_common_quick_export | 14 Emit_common_top | 15 Emit_dafny_text | 16 Emit_fstar_text | 17 Emit_vale_text | 18 Transform |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Ast | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2 DafnyInterface | ||||||||||||||||||
| 3 doc.rtd.vale_pygments | ||||||||||||||||||
| 4 tools.scripts | ||||||||||||||||||
| 5 tools.scripts.interact | ||||||||||||||||||
| 6 Ast_util | 11 | |||||||||||||||||
| 7 Emit_dafny_direct | 10 | |||||||||||||||||
| 8 Parse_util | 3 | |||||||||||||||||
| 9 TypeChecker | 35 | |||||||||||||||||
| 10 Emit_common_base | 4 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 11 Emit_common_lemmas | 11 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| 12 Emit_common_quick_code | 6 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 13 Emit_common_quick_export | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 14 Emit_common_top | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 15 Emit_dafny_text | 10 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 16 Emit_fstar_text | 10 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 17 Emit_vale_text | 13 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 18 Transform | 17 | 1 |
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
6→1 Ast_util uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 11 pairs of types, where a type in Ast_util uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Ast_util.Ast_util→Ast.bindOpAst_util.Ast_util→Ast.bopAst_util.Ast_util→Ast.calcContentsAst_util.Ast_util→Ast.expAst_util.Ast_util→Ast.idAst_util.Ast_util→Ast.locAst_util.Ast_util→Ast.opAst_util.Ast_util→Ast.specAst_util.Ast_util→Ast.stmtAst_util.Ast_util→Ast.typAst_util.print_state→Ast.loc
- Direction
- Ast_util uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Ast_util, while a change to Ast_util can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Ast_util uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
7→1 Emit_dafny_direct uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 10 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_dafny_direct uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Emit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.bopEmit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.expEmit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.fun_declEmit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.ghostEmit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.idEmit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.locEmit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.proc_declEmit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.stmtEmit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.typEmit_dafny_direct.Emit_dafny_direct→Ast.var_storage
- Direction
- Emit_dafny_direct uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Emit_dafny_direct, while a change to Emit_dafny_direct can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_dafny_direct uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
8→1 Parse_util uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in Parse_util uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Parse_util.Parse_util→Ast.expParse_util.Parse_util→Ast.idParse_util.Parse_util→Ast.loc
- Direction
- Parse_util uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Parse_util, while a change to Parse_util can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Parse_util uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
9→1 TypeChecker uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 35 pairs of types, where a type in TypeChecker uses a type in Ast. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
- The types involved
TypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.bndTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.bopTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.calcContentsTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.castTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.expTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.fun_declTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.idTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.inoutTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.kindTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.locTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.operand_typTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.proc_declTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.stmtTypeChecker.TypeChecker→Ast.typTypeChecker.aexp_t→Ast.bindOpTypeChecker.aexp_t→Ast.castTypeChecker.aexp_t→Ast.expTypeChecker.aexp_t→Ast.idTypeChecker.aexp_t→Ast.locTypeChecker.aexp_t→Ast.opTypeChecker.aexp_t→Ast.typTypeChecker.fun_instance→Ast.idTypeChecker.fun_instance→Ast.typTypeChecker.fun_or_proc→Ast.fun_declTypeChecker.fun_or_proc→Ast.proc_decl
- Direction
- TypeChecker uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break TypeChecker, while a change to TypeChecker can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: TypeChecker uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
10→1 Emit_common_base uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_common_base uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Emit_common_base.Emit_common_base→Ast.expEmit_common_base.Emit_common_base→Ast.ghostEmit_common_base.Emit_common_base→Ast.idEmit_common_base.Emit_common_base→Ast.stmt
- Direction
- Emit_common_base uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Emit_common_base, while a change to Emit_common_base can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_base uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
10→6 Emit_common_base uses Ast_util✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in Emit_common_base uses a type in Ast_util.
- The types involved
Emit_common_base.Emit_common_base→Ast_util.map_modify
- Direction
- Emit_common_base uses Ast_util, so a change to Ast_util can break Emit_common_base, while a change to Emit_common_base can't break Ast_util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_base uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
10→9 Emit_common_base uses TypeChecker✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in Emit_common_base uses a type in TypeChecker.
- The types involved
Emit_common_base.Emit_common_base→TypeChecker.env
- Direction
- Emit_common_base uses TypeChecker, so a change to TypeChecker can break Emit_common_base, while a change to Emit_common_base can't break TypeChecker.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_base uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
11→1 Emit_common_lemmas uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 11 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_common_lemmas uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Emit_common_lemmas.Emit_common_lemmas→Ast.calcContentsEmit_common_lemmas.Emit_common_lemmas→Ast.expEmit_common_lemmas.Emit_common_lemmas→Ast.idEmit_common_lemmas.Emit_common_lemmas→Ast.locEmit_common_lemmas.Emit_common_lemmas→Ast.proc_declEmit_common_lemmas.Emit_common_lemmas→Ast.stmtEmit_common_lemmas.build_env→Ast.locEmit_common_lemmas.build_env→Ast.proc_declEmit_common_lemmas.stmt_env→Ast.expEmit_common_lemmas.stmt_env→Ast.idEmit_common_lemmas.stmt_env→Ast.loc
- Direction
- Emit_common_lemmas uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Emit_common_lemmas, while a change to Emit_common_lemmas can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_lemmas uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
11→9 Emit_common_lemmas uses TypeChecker✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_common_lemmas uses a type in TypeChecker.
- The types involved
Emit_common_lemmas.Emit_common_lemmas→TypeChecker.envEmit_common_lemmas.stmt_env→TypeChecker.env
- Direction
- Emit_common_lemmas uses TypeChecker, so a change to TypeChecker can break Emit_common_lemmas, while a change to Emit_common_lemmas can't break TypeChecker.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_lemmas uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
12→1 Emit_common_quick_code uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 6 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_common_quick_code uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Emit_common_quick_code.Emit_common_quick_code→Ast.expEmit_common_quick_code.Emit_common_quick_code→Ast.idEmit_common_quick_code.Emit_common_quick_code→Ast.locEmit_common_quick_code.Emit_common_quick_code→Ast.proc_declEmit_common_quick_code.Emit_common_quick_code→Ast.stmtEmit_common_quick_code.Emit_common_quick_code→Ast.typ
- Direction
- Emit_common_quick_code uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Emit_common_quick_code, while a change to Emit_common_quick_code can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_quick_code uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
12→9 Emit_common_quick_code uses TypeChecker✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in Emit_common_quick_code uses a type in TypeChecker.
- The types involved
Emit_common_quick_code.Emit_common_quick_code→TypeChecker.env
- Direction
- Emit_common_quick_code uses TypeChecker, so a change to TypeChecker can break Emit_common_quick_code, while a change to Emit_common_quick_code can't break TypeChecker.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_quick_code uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
13→1 Emit_common_quick_export uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_common_quick_export uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Emit_common_quick_export.Emit_common_quick_export→Ast.locEmit_common_quick_export.Emit_common_quick_export→Ast.proc_decl
- Direction
- Emit_common_quick_export uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Emit_common_quick_export, while a change to Emit_common_quick_export can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_quick_export uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
13→9 Emit_common_quick_export uses TypeChecker✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in Emit_common_quick_export uses a type in TypeChecker.
- The types involved
Emit_common_quick_export.Emit_common_quick_export→TypeChecker.env
- Direction
- Emit_common_quick_export uses TypeChecker, so a change to TypeChecker can break Emit_common_quick_export, while a change to Emit_common_quick_export can't break TypeChecker.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_quick_export uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
14→1 Emit_common_top uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_common_top uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Emit_common_top.Emit_common_top→Ast.declEmit_common_top.Emit_common_top→Ast.loc
- Direction
- Emit_common_top uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Emit_common_top, while a change to Emit_common_top can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_top uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
14→9 Emit_common_top uses TypeChecker✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in Emit_common_top uses a type in TypeChecker.
- The types involved
Emit_common_top.Emit_common_top→TypeChecker.env
- Direction
- Emit_common_top uses TypeChecker, so a change to TypeChecker can break Emit_common_top, while a change to Emit_common_top can't break TypeChecker.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_common_top uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→1 Emit_dafny_text uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 10 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_dafny_text uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Emit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.bopEmit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.expEmit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.fun_declEmit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.ghostEmit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.idEmit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.locEmit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.proc_declEmit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.stmtEmit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.typEmit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast.var_storage
- Direction
- Emit_dafny_text uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Emit_dafny_text, while a change to Emit_dafny_text can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_dafny_text uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→6 Emit_dafny_text uses Ast_util✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in Emit_dafny_text uses a type in Ast_util.
- The types involved
Emit_dafny_text.Emit_dafny_text→Ast_util.print_state
- Direction
- Emit_dafny_text uses Ast_util, so a change to Ast_util can break Emit_dafny_text, while a change to Emit_dafny_text can't break Ast_util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_dafny_text uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→1 Emit_fstar_text uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 10 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_fstar_text uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Emit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.bopEmit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.expEmit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.fun_declEmit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.ghostEmit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.idEmit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.locEmit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.proc_declEmit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.stmtEmit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.typEmit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast.var_storage
- Direction
- Emit_fstar_text uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Emit_fstar_text, while a change to Emit_fstar_text can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_fstar_text uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→6 Emit_fstar_text uses Ast_util✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in Emit_fstar_text uses a type in Ast_util.
- The types involved
Emit_fstar_text.Emit_fstar_text→Ast_util.print_state
- Direction
- Emit_fstar_text uses Ast_util, so a change to Ast_util can break Emit_fstar_text, while a change to Emit_fstar_text can't break Ast_util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_fstar_text uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→1 Emit_vale_text uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 13 pairs of types, where a type in Emit_vale_text uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Emit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.bopEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.expEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.fun_declEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.ghostEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.idEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.kindEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.locEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.proc_declEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.raw_spec_kindEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.stmtEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.stmt_modifierEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.typEmit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast.var_storage
- Direction
- Emit_vale_text uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Emit_vale_text, while a change to Emit_vale_text can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_vale_text uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→6 Emit_vale_text uses Ast_util✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in Emit_vale_text uses a type in Ast_util.
- The types involved
Emit_vale_text.Emit_vale_text→Ast_util.print_state
- Direction
- Emit_vale_text uses Ast_util, so a change to Ast_util can break Emit_vale_text, while a change to Emit_vale_text can't break Ast_util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Emit_vale_text uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→1 Transform uses Ast✕
- Connections
- 17 pairs of types, where a type in Transform uses a type in Ast.
- The types involved
Transform.Transform→Ast.calcContentsTransform.Transform→Ast.declTransform.Transform→Ast.expTransform.Transform→Ast.ghostTransform.Transform→Ast.idTransform.Transform→Ast.inoutTransform.Transform→Ast.locTransform.Transform→Ast.proc_declTransform.Transform→Ast.specTransform.Transform→Ast.stmtTransform.Transform→Ast.typTransform.env→Ast.expTransform.id_info→Ast.idTransform.id_info→Ast.inoutTransform.id_info→Ast.mutabilityTransform.id_info→Ast.typTransform.id_local→Ast.exp
- Direction
- Transform uses Ast, so a change to Ast can break Transform, while a change to Transform can't break Ast.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Transform uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→6 Transform uses Ast_util✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in Transform uses a type in Ast_util.
- The types involved
Transform.Transform→Ast_util.map_modify
- Direction
- Transform uses Ast_util, so a change to Ast_util can break Transform, while a change to Transform can't break Ast_util.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: Transform uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
7.3
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.6
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X12 · Repo
Unreachable branch
10.0
X13 · Repo
Undrained process stream
10.0
X16 · Repo
Unfloored truncation loop
10.0
X18 · Repo
Disposal-pattern correctness
10.0
X19 · Repo
Unrestored process-global state
10.0
X20 · Repo
Mistyped argument guard
10.0
X21 · Repo
Side-effecting pattern guard
10.0
X22 · Repo
Contradicted release guard
10.0
X23 · Repo
Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
10.0
X25 · Repo
Inert configuration knob
10.0
X26 · Repo
Unsynchronised callback handoff
10.0
X27 · Repo
Collection changed while being enumerated
10.0
X28 · Repo
Index access outside its own emptiness guard
10.0
X29 · Repo
Per-element action decided by a fixed element
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X30 · Repo
Support guard that admits what it rejects
10.0
X32 · Repo
Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
D28 · .NET / C#
Secrets (history)
10.0
D29 · .NET / C#
Static Analysis (SAST)
10.0
D30 · .NET / C#
Dependency Vulnerabilities
10.0
D31 · .NET / C#
IaC & Container Security
8.7
D43 · .NET / C#
Malicious Dependencies
10.0
X14 · Repo
Bypassable address classification
10.0
X15 · Repo
Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
10.0
X17 · Repo
Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
10.0
X24 · Repo
Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
10.0
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration | 4 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by establishing automated test coverage and ensuring all code files are included in the test suite to eliminate gaps in quality assurance. Next, update the nine orphaned code files and eight orphaned knowledge documents to restore technical accuracy and maintainability. Finally, create an Architecture Decision Record to document key design choices and improve long-term project clarity.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +17.2 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +17.2 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Resolve the 9 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with emit_common_quick_code.fs, main.fs, emit_vale_text.fs. | +13.0 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 8 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with typechecker.fs, transform.fs, main.fs. | +11.6 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +6.5 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +6.3 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them. | +4.3 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +1.4 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 4.8 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED |
| tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs | 7.0 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Near-duplicate member pair (77 shared lines) |
| tools/Vale/src/typechecker.fs | 7.4 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: src/typechecker.fs |
| tools/Vale/src/transform.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: src/transform.fs |
| tools/Vale/src/emit_fstar_text.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: Emit_fstar_text |
| tools/Vale/src/ast_util.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: Ast_util |
| tools/Vale/src/emit_common_lemmas.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: src/emit_common_lemmas.fs |
| tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_direct.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: src/emit_dafny_direct.fs |
| tools/Vale/src/emit_vale_text.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: Emit_vale_text |
| tools/Vale/DafnyInterface/Source/DafnyInterface/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
How the grades work
Critical — 13
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 21
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Minor — 23
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 8
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 53 of 57 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 57 dimensions across the health lenses
D3D4D5D8D9D13D14D17D19D20D21D24D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D43AX10AX3AX4AX5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4
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, 47 of 57 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.c, .cs, .fs) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.c, .cs, .fs) had no cognitive complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: error: The value "" of the "Project" attribute in element <Import> is invalid. tools/Vale/src/Vale.fsproj.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (1 line(s) across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .c, .cs, .fs, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. All 17 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 3 of the 21 production source files in this repository: 4 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 14 have no attributable history left to measure.
- D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Cannot open project 'tools/Vale/src/Vale.fsproj' because the file extension '.fsproj' is not associated with a language.
- D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 0 deducted marker(s) and the 0.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (9,021 lines, 77% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (nuget packages.config) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; nuget was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that nuget is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
- D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a REDACTED) is simply not read here yet.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (.docker/build/linux/Dockerfile). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
- P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
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
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite 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.
- 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.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D3 · God Classes
7 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.
FileTooLong: src/typechecker.fs tools/Vale/src/typechecker.fs
TooManyFunctions: Ast_util tools/Vale/src/ast_util.fs:1
What to do
- Resolve the 4 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with typechecker.fs, transform.fs, emit_common_lemmas.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with ast_util.fs, emit_fstar_text.fs, emit_vale_text.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
11 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/emit_fstar_text.fs:235
Near-duplicate member pair (77 shared lines)tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:1
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:222
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:158
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:205
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with emit_fstar_text.fs, transform.fs, typechecker.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Near-duplicate member pair (77 shared lines) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with emit_dafny_text.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with emit_dafny_text.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
1 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.
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).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Coverage in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test suite found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 63 packages use a banned license. The depth of this set was not established for this repository: the graded packages are what this pass resolved, and no lockfile was read, so it is not certified to be the full transitive closure.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 192 LoC in the .NET projects (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (77% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The project's documentation is comprehensive and well-structured: a single root README (the first document) gives an overview of Vale as the verified assembly-language tool for cryptographic code with Dafny/F* integration, installation instructions, and links to academic papers. The repository-level doc/ directory documents build steps for Sphinx themes, while tools/Kremlin's README is directed at its own subdirectory. A dense types-and-grammar reference (doc/rtd/grammar.rst) covers the language's full syntax with examples, plus a grammar section on verbatim blocks and declarations. The root README also links to an architecture/design doc (the outline lists Projects using Vale), so all outlined sections are present despite being clipped by the scanner.
XML-doc coverage: DafnyInterfacetools/Vale/DafnyInterface/Source/DafnyInterface/DafnyInterface.csproj
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
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).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 28 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
6 valuable / 1 redundant across 8 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
redundant commenttools/Vale/DafnyInterface/Source/DafnyInterface/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs:17
What to do
- Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with AssemblyInfo.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `tools/Kremlin/kremlib/kremlib.h` (line 334, line 415) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (nuget packages.config). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (nuget packages.config), and the findings above are real and complete for them. nuget was not scanned (nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
4 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 4 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
17 of 17 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is tools/Vale/src/typechecker.fs. Counted over 17 of the 21 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Orphaned knowledge tools/Vale/src/typechecker.fs:1
Orphaned file tools/Vale/src/emit_common_quick_code.fs:1
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 9 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with emit_common_quick_code.fs, main.fs, emit_vale_text.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 8 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with typechecker.fs, transform.fs, main.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it all sits under fstar/, so the conventional src/ boundary between the product and its tooling isn't drawn.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- INSTALL.md links to `./src`, but `src` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — INSTALL.md:72
- doc/rtd/example_exp.rst links to `10`, but `doc/rtd/10` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — doc/rtd/example_exp.rst:19
- doc/rtd/exp.rst links to `ghost`, but `doc/rtd/ghost` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — doc/rtd/exp.rst:128
- doc/rtd/exp.rst links to `10,`, but `doc/rtd/10,` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — doc/rtd/exp.rst:134
- doc/rtd/exp.rst links to `10`, but `doc/rtd/10` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — doc/rtd/exp.rst:325
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: INSTALL.md links to `./src`, but `src` does not exist; doc/rtd/example_exp.rst links to `10`, but `doc/rtd/10` does not exist; doc/rtd/exp.rst links to `ghost`, but `doc/rtd/ghost` does not exist; doc/rtd/exp.rst links to `10,`, but `doc/rtd/10,` does not exist; doc/rtd/exp.rst links to `10`, but `doc/rtd/10` does not exist.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Run what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X12 · Unreachable branch
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream
Do you agree with this assessment?
X14 · Bypassable address classification
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
Do you agree with this assessment?
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
Do you agree with this assessment?
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
Do you agree with this assessment?
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X22 · Contradicted release guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
Do you agree with this assessment?
X25 · Inert configuration knob
Do you agree with this assessment?
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
Do you agree with this assessment?
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 95% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 38% | Weak — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 18% | Weak — gated by D8, D9, P1, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 97% | Exemplary | Solid. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 61 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — 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.
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — cyclomatic complexity not measured — .c, .cs, .fs exposed no member bodies
- D10 Test Quality — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — No test suite was found to re-run, so reliability couldn't be assessed. Two searches produced that zero and both came back empty: the classifier that reads the loaded workspace recognised no suite it could run, and a walk of the source on disk — which covers the JS/TS `*.test.*` and `*.spec.*` conventions and probes for a Pester suite — found no test source in any other ecosystem either. Neither search reaches a suite that is missing from the loaded workspace and carries no name either walk recognises, so this is 'no suite found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .c, .cs, .fs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .c, .fs, .py, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — cognitive complexity not measured — .c, .cs, .fs exposed no member bodies
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — small single-context codebase (11,201 production LoC in the .NET projects) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured: of the 2 type(s) found, none both holds instance state and has two or more methods whose shared use of it could be read (1 with fewer than two methods, 1 stateless), so LCOM4 is undefined for every type in this repository. Not scored — the metric does not apply here, and this is not a finding about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 18 value object(s); 1 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async method does work a token could cancel
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 13 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned knowledge tools/Vale/src/typechecker.fs:1
- Orphaned knowledge tools/Vale/src/transform.fs:1
- Orphaned knowledge tools/ImportFStarTypes/src/main.fs:1
- Orphaned knowledge tools/Dafny/DafnyRuntime.cs:1
- Orphaned knowledge tools/Vale/src/emit_common_lemmas.fs:1
- Orphaned knowledge tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_direct.fs:1
- Orphaned knowledge tools/Vale/src/emit_fstar_text.fs:1
- Orphaned knowledge tools/Vale/src/ast_util.fs:1
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Serious — 21 finding(s)
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: src/typechecker.fs tools/Vale/src/typechecker.fs
- FileTooLong: src/transform.fs tools/Vale/src/transform.fs
- FileTooLong: src/emit_common_lemmas.fs tools/Vale/src/emit_common_lemmas.fs
- FileTooLong: src/emit_dafny_direct.fs tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_direct.fs
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyFunctions: Ast_util tools/Vale/src/ast_util.fs:1
- TooManyFunctions: Emit_fstar_text tools/Vale/src/emit_fstar_text.fs:1
- TooManyFunctions: Emit_vale_text tools/Vale/src/emit_vale_text.fs:1
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/emit_fstar_text.fs:235
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/transform.fs:322
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/typechecker.fs:1347
D4 · Code Duplication
- Near-duplicate member pair (77 shared lines) tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:1
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:222
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:158
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:205
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:129
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:242
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:178
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) tools/Vale/src/typechecker.fs:1437
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:63
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI pipeline
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene
- NuGet dependencies are not locked
Minor — 22 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned file tools/Vale/src/emit_common_quick_code.fs:1
- Orphaned file tools/Vale/src/main.fs:1
- Orphaned file tools/Vale/src/emit_vale_text.fs:1
- Orphaned file tools/Vale/src/emit_dafny_text.fs:1
- Orphaned file tools/Vale/src/emit_common_quick_export.fs:1
- Orphaned file tools/Vale/DafnyInterface/Source/DafnyInterface/DafnyDriver.cs:1
- Orphaned file tools/Vale/src/emit_common_base.fs:1
- Orphaned file tools/Vale/src/ast.fs:1
- Orphaned file tools/Vale/src/emit_common_top.fs:1
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README/code drift INSTALL.md:72
- README/code drift doc/rtd/example_exp.rst:19
- README/code drift doc/rtd/exp.rst:128
- README/code drift doc/rtd/exp.rst:134
- README/code drift doc/rtd/exp.rst:325
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment tools/Vale/DafnyInterface/Source/DafnyInterface/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs:17
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No ADRs
M3 · Folder & project structure
- No src/ separation
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No SAST
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No changelog
Minor — 1 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: DafnyInterface tools/Vale/DafnyInterface/Source/DafnyInterface/DafnyInterface.csproj
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-2fb8da47ddc140d6b8d3597f96842086/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-2fb8da47ddc140d6b8d3597f96842086/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 0 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | nuget | — | nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . | 0 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 4 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . | 0 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |