Executive summary
Band capped at Weak: the weakest category (Dependencies, 17%) reads Critical — the cover never out-promises the category table.
This system presents a fragile operational standing despite strong underlying code quality, scoring 69% overall. While the architecture is robust and the codebase is clean, the low production readiness score signals that the system is not yet safe to operate at scale. For leadership, this means the asset is small and cheap to replace, but its current instability poses a disproportionate risk to delivery speed and reliability. The value tied up here is modest, with a rebuild cost of approximately €42,000, yet the immediate exposure to outages and security gaps threatens customer trust and operational continuity.
The primary risk lies in operational fragility. With a readiness score of 52%, the system lacks the necessary safeguards for safe deployment and monitoring. This gap increases the likelihood of defects reaching production and extends downtime during incidents. Without proper release protections and atomic transaction handling, a single crash could result in lost data or phantom events, directly impacting business integrity and requiring costly manual intervention to resolve.
A secondary concern is dependency management. The absence of automated update gates leaves the system vulnerable to known security vulnerabilities and compatibility issues. While the code itself is healthy, relying on manual updates is unsustainable and introduces unnecessary security exposure. This is the highest-leverage area for improvement, as addressing it requires minimal effort but significantly reduces long-term maintenance costs and security risks.
On the positive side, the code health and architecture scores are excellent, indicating that the core logic is maintainable and well-structured. The team has built a solid foundation that is easy for new engineers to understand. However, this strength is undermined by the lack of operational maturity. To focus first, the team should enable automated dependency updates and review release protection rules. These actions offer the greatest return on investment by stabilizing the system without requiring significant architectural changes. Confidence in this assessment is high, though some areas like domain modeling and performance were not measured, leaving a partial picture of the total risk profile.
Code Health
91% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
98% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
82%
Strong
Readiness
52%
Adequate · gated by D12
Security
85%
Adequate · gated by D36
Event-Driven
80%
Strong
Event Sourcing
100% ★
Exemplary
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 52% · 46% weightEvent-Driven 80% · 25% weightMaturity 82% · 14% weightSecurity 85% · 8% weightCode Health 91% · 4% weightArchitecture 98% · 2% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 1% weight
Raise Readiness 52 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 69 → ~77.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (25+)
- D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) native/reckon_db_filter_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_telemetry.erl
- D4 · Duplicated block (15–17 lines × 5) native/reckon_db_filter_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 7) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_filter_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_crypto_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs
- D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs
- D15 · Repeated repair: src/reckon_db_leader.erl src/reckon_db_leader.erl
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D29 · REDACTED
- D36 · REDACTED
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €14,000–€71,000
| Cost to rebuild | €14,000–€71,000 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 1.0× (at 69% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€42,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 52% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
2
The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
3
Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 52%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · Erlang
Cyclomatic Complexity
8.2
D2 · Erlang
Cognitive Complexity
9.0
D3 · Erlang
God Classes
7.4
D4 · Erlang
Code Duplication
9.3
D17 · Erlang
Explicit Debt
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
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
D15 · Erlang
Churn × Complexity Hotspots
9.8
D19 · Erlang
Documentation Quality
9.0
D20 · Erlang
ADR Quality
8.0
D21 · Erlang
Naming Consistency
10.0
D34 · Erlang
Knowledge Freshness
10.0
M1 · Repo
Documentation (README)
8.3
M2 · Repo
Architecture documentation
7.0
M3 · Repo
Folder & project structure
10.0
M4 · Repo
Documentation accuracy
8.0
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Good
D28 · Erlang
Secrets (history)
10.0
D29 · Erlang
Static Analysis (SAST)
10.0
D30 · Erlang
Dependency Vulnerabilities
9.3
D37 · Erlang
Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
10.0
D43 · Erlang
Malicious Dependencies
10.0
D44 · Erlang
Platform End-of-Life
10.0
X14 · Repo
Bypassable address classification
10.0
At a glance — Event-Driven
The Good
At a glance — Event Sourcing
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 8 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, enable automated dependency scanning and review gates to strengthen security and performance. Second, verify that deployment protection rules are correctly configured or use draft releases to prevent bad builds from reaching users. Third, implement the transactional outbox pattern to ensure database writes and message publishing remain consistent during crashes. Finally, organize architecture decision records in a standard directory structure and update the README to accurately reflect the current infrastructure.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate. | +14.2 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +14.2 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash. | +1.8 pts | Medium | Outbox / dual-write |
| Move ADRs under docs/adr/ (or docs/adrs/) and name them NNNN-title.md so they're easy to find. | +1.2 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists. | +1.2 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Add a README to the 5 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.7 pts. | +1.2 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Improve ADR Quality — currently 8.0/10. | +0.7 pts | Medium | ADR Quality |
| Resolve the 9 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with reckon_db_consistency_checker.erl, reckon_db_filter_nif.erl, reckon_db_archive_nif.erl. | +0.2 pts | Low | God Classes |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 4.6 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs | 7.0 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) |
| native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs | 7.1 | Mixed | Cognitive Complexity: reckon_db_aggregate_nif::nif_sum_field (cognitive 28) |
| src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl | 7.1 | Mixed | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_aggregate_nif |
| src/reckon_db_streams_reader.erl | 7.2 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED |
| native/reckon_db_filter_nif/src/lib.rs | 7.4 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) |
| src/reckon_db_consistency_checker.erl | 7.8 | Mixed | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_consistency_checker |
| src/reckon_db_streams.erl | 7.8 | Mixed | God Classes: FileTooLong: src/reckon_db_streams.erl |
| src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl | 7.8 | Mixed | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_archive_nif |
| src/reckon_db_scavenge.erl | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) |
| src/reckon_db_capability_verifier.erl | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/reckon_db_gateway_worker.erl | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: reckon_db_gateway_worker.handle_call (cyclomatic 73) |
| src/reckon_db_store_registry.erl | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: reckon_db_store_registry.handle_call (cyclomatic 17) |
| src/reckon_db_filter_nif.erl | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_filter_nif |
| src/reckon_db_health_prober.erl | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_health_prober |
| src/reckon_db_store_healer.erl | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_store_healer |
| src/reckon_db_dcb.erl | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_dcb |
| src/reckon_db_resource_monitor.erl | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_resource_monitor |
How the grades work
Critical — 10
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 — 59
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 — 34
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 33
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. 39 of 44 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 44 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D12D13D14D15D17D19D20D21D26D28D29D30D34D35D36D37D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9ED4ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6X14X27X28X29
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, 94 of 103 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 | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D8 Code Coverage — 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. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.erl) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`rebar3 do eunit --cover, cover` (or covertool for Cobertura XML)) 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. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (`rebar3 do eunit --cover, cover` (or covertool for Cobertura XML)) 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 — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.erl) and this repository declares a rebar3 project (repository root, 40 test files, 21 Common Test suites), but it was not re-run: the analyzer environment could not run it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its crate dependencies. Nothing was read about its Rebar dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (2 contributor(s) across 212 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 100% of the history; the other 1 hold 0% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (rebar.config), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
- AX6 Interface segregation — 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 check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- C1 Data Protection — 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. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — 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. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — 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. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — 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. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — 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. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — 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 check reads C# syntax and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# or JavaScript/TypeScript was found, and this repository's Erlang, Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — 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 check reads C# syntax and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# or JavaScript/TypeScript was found, and this repository's Erlang, Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — 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 check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — 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. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X1 Async correctness — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X12 Unreachable branch — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X13 Undrained process stream — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, PHP and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, PHP or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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 check reads C# syntax, and TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Ruby, PHP and Python source only, and no C# was loaded, no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Ruby, PHP or Python was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — 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 check reads C# syntax, and Java source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X25 Inert configuration knob — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X3 Exception handling — 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 check reads C# syntax, and PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby or Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — 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 check reads C# syntax, and Scala, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X4 Structured logging — 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 check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X5 Nullable reference types — 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 check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, and TypeScript source and its tsconfig files only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — 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. X7 measured the part of this repository it reads (C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin and PHP), and its Erlang source is outside the check's reach, so the card covers only part of the product. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the unread source is free of silent defaults.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- 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.
- 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.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- 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
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
2 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was reckon_db_gateway_worker.handle_call at 73. A further 2 function(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being reckon_db_filters.matches at 19 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 2 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/reckon_db_filters.erl (reckon_db_filters.matches at 19), src/reckon_db_telemetry.erl (reckon_db_telemetry.handle_event at 19). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
reckon_db_gateway_worker.handle_call (cyclomatic 73)src/reckon_db_gateway_worker.erl:64
reckon_db_store_registry.handle_call (cyclomatic 17)src/reckon_db_store_registry.erl:158
What to do
- Bring the 1 body over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with reckon_db_gateway_worker.handle_call (cyclomatic 73). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.2 to about 9.1/10.
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
4 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was reckon_db_aggregate_nif::nif_sum_field at 28.
reckon_db_aggregate_nif::nif_sum_field (cognitive 28) native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs:217
What to do
- Bring the 4 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with reckon_db_aggregate_nif::nif_sum_field (cognitive 28), reckon_db_aggregate_nif::nif_aggregation_stats (cognitive 17), reckon_db_aggregate_nif::state_to_term (cognitive 16). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 4 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.0 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
11 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.
TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_consistency_checker src/reckon_db_consistency_checker.erl:31
FileTooLong: src/reckon_db_streams.erl src/reckon_db_streams.erl
What to do
- Resolve the 9 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with reckon_db_consistency_checker.erl, reckon_db_filter_nif.erl, reckon_db_archive_nif.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with reckon_db_streams.erl, reckon_db_subscriptions.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
30 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:352
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:108
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_scavenge.erl:116
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:360
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_cluster.erl:83
What to do
- Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with lib.rs (2), reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl, reckon_db_scavenge.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with lib.rs (2), reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with reckon_db_scavenge.erl, reckon_db_streams_reader.erl, lib.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
6 production modules (Cargo+OTP), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 1 of the 6 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 21 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D7 · Architectural Integrity
All 1 mechanizable ADR(s) are enforced: 1 by analyzers, 0 by tests. Dependency cycles not checked (no project-reference graph; where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
1 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. 2 of 12 direct crates were graded against crates.io (0 not published there, 10 not resolved by a committed REDACTED). Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.
Outdated: regex
What to do
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
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 17 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's crate dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
Top hotspots: src/reckon_db_gateway_worker.erl (5×73=365) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: src/reckon_db_store_coordinator.erl (5 of 7 changes were fixes); src/reckon_db_store_healer.erl (5 of 6 changes were fixes); src/reckon_db_resource_monitor.erl (5 of 5 changes were fixes)
Repeated repair: src/reckon_db_store_coordinator.erl src/reckon_db_store_coordinator.erl:184
Hotspot: src/reckon_db_gateway_worker.erlsrc/reckon_db_gateway_worker.erl:64
What to do
- Resolve the 6 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with reckon_db_store_coordinator.erl, reckon_db_store_healer.erl, reckon_db_resource_monitor.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with reckon_db_gateway_worker.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
1 deducted task-comment markers across 19417 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
TodoCommentsrc/reckon_db_capability_verifier.erl:127
What to do
- Resolve the 1 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with reckon_db_capability_verifier.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README (reckon-db) is a clear project overview with an Overview section describing event-sourced Raft consensus, features like DCB conditional append, and the architecture. The benchmarks/README documents the benchmarks directory; guides/README documents the guides directory. dialyzer-backlog.md is a focused policy document on dialyzer warnings for reckoned-db. All four READMEs are well-structured with headings, an overview, and cross-referenced features.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
Evaluated 1 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 8.0/10 (consistently complete and clear). 0 flagged with a specific gap.
What to do
- Improve ADR Quality — currently 8.0/10. — Evaluated 1 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 8.0/10 (consistently complete and clear). 0 flagged with a specific gap.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
1 of 6 build units (Cargo, rebar3) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
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)
8 finding(s): 0 critical, 8 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 8 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `scripts/is_hex_serving_what_git_says.sh` (line 22) — 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.
REDACTED
What to do
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 8 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 1 low.
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 1 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Low vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 80 of the 85 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.
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?
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
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?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write
- `reckon_db_subscriptions` clause `store_and_setup/6#152` PERSISTS state AND BROADCASTS a domain event as two independent side effects in the same clause, with no shared transaction or outbox. A crash between the two — or a redelivered message — diverges the store from what subscribers saw (state committed, broadcast lost) or emits a phantom event (broadcast sent, state rolled back). Record the event alongside the state in the SAME write and dispatch it from there afterwards (a transactional outbox); where the store is mnesia, wrapping both in one `mnesia:transaction` achieves the same atomicity directly. Divergence blast-radius: MEDIUM. — src/reckon_db_subscriptions.erl:153
What to do
- Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.
Do you agree with this assessment?
ES1 · Fold determinism
Do you agree with this assessment?
ES2 · Immutable events
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a README to the 5 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.7 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- 1 ADR-shaped document(s) detected by content — `plans/PLAN_DCB_IMPLEMENTATION.md`. They are not under a conventional ADR folder (docs/adr/) and are not named NNNN-title.md, and this check found them by their decision signature rather than by where they live — so a reader who does not already know these paths has no route to them. Detected by content signature only: records kept outside the repository, or written without a Status/Decision/Consequences shape, are not visible to this check and are not counted here.
What to do
- Move ADRs under docs/adr/ (or docs/adrs/) and name them NNNN-title.md so they're easy to find.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists — searched for: `kubernetes`, `k8s`, `helm`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- 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
- The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
X14 · Bypassable address classification
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?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 91% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 98% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 82% | Strong | Solid. |
| Readiness | 52% | Adequate — gated by D12 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 85% | Adequate — gated by D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Event-Driven | 80% | Strong | Solid. |
| Event Sourcing | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- X31 Test-only surface in a production module — 25 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 72 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 — Not applicable: the BEAM has no dependency-injection container — state lives in processes, and no process is handed an instance whose lifetime another one scopes; Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Erlang processes share no mutable memory — state lives in a process's own mailbox — so there is no shared object to race on. Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~13584 lines of test source are present (.erl) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .erl suite was found but not re-run
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. 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"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — none of 1 ADRs are conformance-checkable — unverifiable.
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
- 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.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- 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.
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.erl) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (142 value object(s))
- ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# and JavaScript/TypeScript, and neither was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P2 Observability — This repository's Erlang, Rust source (6 module(s), 79 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Erlang, Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`rebar3 do eunit --cover, cover` (or covertool for Cobertura XML)) 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 — Benchmark discipline was not assessed: this repository is written in Erlang, whose benchmark frameworks this check does not search yet. That is a gap in the analyzer's language reach, not a finding about your code.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Erlang runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on. Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: Erlang has no async/await function colour, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X12 Unreachable branch — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X22 Contradicted release guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X25 Inert configuration knob — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Erlang processes share no heap: a value sent to another process arrives as a copy, so no collection is reachable from two processes at once. Rust's compiler refuses the unsynchronised version: a collection shared between a callback's thread and the waiting body must be `Sync`, which a `Vec`, `VecDeque` or `HashMap` is only behind a `Mutex`/`RwLock`, so the race this check looks for cannot be written in safe Rust. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- 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.
- 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 — 10 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write
- Dual write (no outbox): reckon_db_subscriptions.store_and_setup/6#152 src/reckon_db_subscriptions.erl:153
Serious — 59 finding(s)
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_consistency_checker src/reckon_db_consistency_checker.erl:31
- TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_filter_nif src/reckon_db_filter_nif.erl:40
- TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_archive_nif src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:42
- TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_health_prober src/reckon_db_health_prober.erl:33
- TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_store_healer src/reckon_db_store_healer.erl:40
- TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_dcb src/reckon_db_dcb.erl:40
- TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_resource_monitor src/reckon_db_resource_monitor.erl:24
- TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_aggregate_nif src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:43
- TooManyFunctions: reckon_db_store_coordinator src/reckon_db_store_coordinator.erl:13
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- Repeated repair: src/reckon_db_store_coordinator.erl src/reckon_db_store_coordinator.erl:184
- Repeated repair: src/reckon_db_store_healer.erl src/reckon_db_store_healer.erl:399
- Repeated repair: src/reckon_db_resource_monitor.erl src/reckon_db_resource_monitor.erl:251
- Repeated repair: src/reckon_db_streams.erl src/reckon_db_streams.erl:706
- Repeated repair: src/reckon_db_leader.erl src/reckon_db_leader.erl:243
- Repeated repair: src/reckon_db_store.erl src/reckon_db_store.erl:327
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:352
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_scavenge.erl:277
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_consistency_checker.erl:235
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs:41
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs:202
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- reckon_db_aggregate_nif::nif_sum_field (cognitive 28) native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs:217
- reckon_db_aggregate_nif::nif_aggregation_stats (cognitive 17) native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs:342
- reckon_db_aggregate_nif::state_to_term (cognitive 16) native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs:120
- reckon_db_aggregate_nif::nif_count_where (cognitive 16) native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs:255
D4 · Code Duplication
- Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:108
- Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs:55
- Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) native/reckon_db_filter_nif/src/lib.rs:42
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_scavenge.erl:116
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_streams_reader.erl:62
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs:88
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:360
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_snapshots_store.erl:151
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_telemetry.erl:106
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_cluster.erl:83
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs:218
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_crypto_nif/src/lib.rs:113
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: src/reckon_db_streams.erl src/reckon_db_streams.erl
- FileTooLong: src/reckon_db_subscriptions.erl src/reckon_db_subscriptions.erl
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) native/reckon_db_aggregate_nif/src/lib.rs:187
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs:134
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- reckon_db_gateway_worker.handle_call (cyclomatic 73) src/reckon_db_gateway_worker.erl:64
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- reckon_db_store_registry.handle_call (cyclomatic 17) src/reckon_db_store_registry.erl:158
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- Hotspot: src/reckon_db_gateway_worker.erl src/reckon_db_gateway_worker.erl:64
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment src/reckon_db_capability_verifier.erl:127
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_streams_reader.erl:160
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 5) src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:108
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:469
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_streams.erl:1026
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:122
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 9) src/reckon_db_cluster_sup.erl:61
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 8) src/reckon_db_core_sup.erl:64
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_streams_reader.erl:122
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/reckon_db_streams_reader.erl:87
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15–17 lines × 5) native/reckon_db_filter_nif/src/lib.rs:46
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 7) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs:58
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_filter_nif/src/lib.rs:161
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs:134
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) native/reckon_db_archive_nif/src/lib.rs:87
Minor — 33 finding(s)
X31 · Test-only surface in a production module
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_aggregate_nif.erl:62
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
- Test-only surface in a production module src/reckon_db_archive_nif.erl:68
D26 · Project Cohesion
- Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation
- ADRs not easily discoverable
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README/code drift
Minor — 1 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: regex
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-d8341d26497b4ae08b750eb1bca877e7/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-d8341d26497b4ae08b750eb1bca877e7/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 . | 8 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 2 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| 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 | — |
| 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 . | 0 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |