Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
refinedev/refine carries serious gaps (42%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (20%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Security (55%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package (Security & performance tooling); unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly,… (Dependency Hygiene).
For scale: — (~0 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly — (—). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
71%
Adequate · gated by D3
Maturity
75%
Strong
Readiness
20% ⚠
Critical · gated by D8, D9, R8, P2, P3
Security
55%
Adequate · gated by D29, D36, D38
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 20% · 50% weightSecurity 55% · 27% weightCode Health 71% · 15% weightMaturity 75% · 8% weight
Raise Readiness 20 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 42 → ~63.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
8.9
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
7.5
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
R1 · React / TS
Type Safety
9.8
R10 · React / TS
Code Duplication
7.4
R2 · React / TS
Cyclomatic Complexity
8.0
R3 · React / TS
Large Files
7.7
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 50 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 50 | High / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 21 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by implementing structured logging and health checks to establish baseline observability. Next, introduce static application security testing to identify vulnerabilities early in the development cycle. Simultaneously, clean up the dependency tree by removing unused packages and explicitly declaring all imports. Finally, address the single gaps in automated testing and test distribution to ensure comprehensive coverage and reliability.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +21.3 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +21.3 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +24.1 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package. | +24.1 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies. | +24.1 pts | Medium | Dependency Hygiene |
| Stamp a version (csproj <Version>, a VERSION file, or GitVersion) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable. | +21.3 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI. | +16.3 pts | Medium | Tooling |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +16.3 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml | 0.0 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| .github/workflows/build-examples.yml | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml | 4.4 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | 4.4 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| .github/workflows/documentation.yml | 4.5 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/calibreapp-image-actions-dispatch.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/example-previews-dispatch.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/calibreapp-image-actions.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| documentation/static/workers/lz-worker.js | 7.2 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: _compress (cyclomatic 38) |
| documentation/plugins/blog-plugin.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cognitive Complexity: injectSitemapLastmod (cognitive 16) |
| packages/mui/src/components/buttons/clone/index.tsx | 7.8 | Mixed | Change Coupling: Change coupling: index.tsx ↔ index.tsx |
| examples/blog-next-refine-pwa/public/workbox-eac1af49.js | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: public/workbox-eac1af49.js |
| documentation/src/components/blog/blog-post-page/index.js | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: blog-post-page/index.js |
| documentation/blog/2021-11-12-issue-tracker-refine.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: The decision (web application with Supabase/Refine backend and React frontend) is stated but no consequences/trade-offs are given |
| documentation/blog/2021-12-22-base64-upload.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Decision and consequences/trade-offs are absent from the visible text |
| documentation/blog/2022-01-18-csv-import.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: The decision/consequences section (how to display the array as a table and any trade-offs) is not shown before the clip; cannot be flagged as missing |
| documentation/blog/2022-02-21-top-react-frameworks.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: The title 'Top React JS Frameworks Every Developer Should Know' is a marketing-style banner with no decision or consequences; it is a comparison post rather than an ADR |
| documentation/blog/2022-02-22-refine-invoice-generator.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Context/problem and consequences/trade-offs are both absent from the visible text |
| documentation/blog/2022-03-01-refine-invoice-generator-p2.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Context/problem and consequences/trade-offs are both absent from the visible text |
| documentation/blog/2022-03-16-internal-tool-frameworks.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Consequences/trade-offs are not visible before the clip marker (the body ends with a review list and clips) |
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. 46 of 49 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — 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 — 49 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D7D8D9D12D13D15D16D20D21D25D26D27D28D29D31D33D34D35D36D37D38AX5M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6R1R10R11R2R3R4R6R7R8R9X1X3X4
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, 211 of 221 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- 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.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- 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.
- D25 ADR Conformance: ADR conformance is the LLM-scored fraction of sampled code that follows recorded decisions — it checks the decisions that were written down and the slices it sampled, not unrecorded rules or the whole tree.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- 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.
- 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 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was _compress at 38.
_compress (cyclomatic 38)documentation/static/workers/lz-worker.js:133
_decompress (cyclomatic 32)documentation/static/workers/lz-worker.js:403
What to do
- Resolve the 1 _compress (cyclomatic 38) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with lz-worker.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 _decompress (cyclomatic 32) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with lz-worker.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
3 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was _compress at 124.
_compress (cognitive 124)documentation/static/workers/lz-worker.js:133
_decompress (cognitive 68)documentation/static/workers/lz-worker.js:403
injectSitemapLastmod (cognitive 16)documentation/plugins/blog-plugin.js:550
What to do
- Resolve the 1 _compress (cognitive 124) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with lz-worker.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 _decompress (cognitive 68) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with lz-worker.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 injectSitemapLastmod (cognitive 16) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with blog-plugin.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
3 god class(es) detected.
FileTooLong: plugins/blog-plugin.js documentation/plugins/blog-plugin.js:0
What to do
- Resolve the 3 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with blog-plugin.js, index.js, workbox-eac1af49.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
0 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- Improve Coupling — currently 6.9/10. — 0 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D7 · Architectural Integrity
Of 17 mechanizable ADRs, 17 are prevented by analyzers, 0 by tests, 0 exist only in prose. Coverage: 100 %. Cycles found: 0.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — the solution has no test code.
No automated tests
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
Evaluated 291 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 6.8/10 (mixed — many ADRs miss context or consequences). 72 flagged with a specific gap.
Context/problem and consequences/trade-offs are both absent from the visible text documentation/blog/2022-02-22-refine-invoice-generator.md
The decision (web application with Supabase/Refine backend and React frontend) is stated but no consequences/trade-offs are givendocumentation/blog/2021-11-12-issue-tracker-refine.md
Decision and consequences/trade-offs are absent from the visible textdocumentation/blog/2021-12-22-base64-upload.md
The decision/consequences section (how to display the array as a table and any trade-offs) is not shown before the clip; cannot be flagged as missingdocumentation/blog/2022-01-18-csv-import.md
The title 'Top React JS Frameworks Every Developer Should Know' is a marketing-style banner with no decision or consequences; it is a comparison post rather than an ADRdocumentation/blog/2022-02-21-top-react-frameworks.md
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Context/problem and consequences/trade-offs are both absent from the… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 2022-02-22-refine-invoice-generator.md, 2022-03-01-refine-invoice-generator-p2.md, 2022-10-07-responsive-navbar.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 The decision (web application with Supabase/Refine backend and React… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 2021-11-12-issue-tracker-refine.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Decision and consequences/trade-offs are absent from the visible text finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 2021-12-22-base64-upload.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D25 · ADR Conformance
2 conform / 0 violate across 291 ADRs.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
No projects to assess.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
Too little code to assess navigability.
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)
156 finding(s): 0 critical, 142 high, 14 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:54
What to do
- Resolve the 50 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build-examples.yml (36), documentation.yml (6), calibreapp-image-actions-dispatch.yml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (50 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
21 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 5 medium, 13 low.
High IaC: KSV-0014 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
Low IaC: KSV-0003 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
What to do
- Resolve the 3 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with deployment.yaml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
- Resolve the 13 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with deployment.yaml (11), Dockerfile (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 5 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with deployment.yaml (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: docgen.js↔docgen.ts 82%; e2e.ts↔index.d.ts 77%; index.ts↔integrations.ts 68%
Change coupling: docgen.js ↔ docgen.ts documentation/plugins/docgen.js
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No artifact signing 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?
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
321 finding(s): 18 critical, 129 high, 133 medium, 41 low.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
What to do
- Resolve the 32 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with pnpm-lock.yaml (32). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (32 issue-level).
- Resolve the 18 Critical CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with pnpm-lock.yaml (18). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
What to do
- Stamp a version (csproj <Version>, a VERSION file, or GitVersion) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety
What to do
- Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R10 · Code Duplication
- packages/cli/src/utils/swizzle/import.test.ts:106 · packages/cli/src/utils/swizzle/import.test.ts:139 · packages/cli/src/utils/swizzle/import.test.ts:170 · packages/cli/src/utils/swizzle/import.test.ts:197 — import.test.ts:106
- packages/cli/src/utils/swizzle/import.test.ts:228 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/auth-bindings-type-to-provider.test.ts:324 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/mutation-result-to-mutation-property.test.ts:294 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/remove-useNewQueryKeys-from-refine-options.test.ts:174 — import.test.ts:228
- packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/use-query-and-result-fields-in-list-hooks.test.ts:101 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/use-query-and-result-fields-in-useCustom-hook.test.ts:75 — use-query-and-result-fields-in-list-hooks.test.ts:101
- packages/devtools-server/src/packages/get-available-packages.ts:8 · packages/devtools-server/src/packages/get-available-packages.ts:52 · packages/devtools-server/src/packages/get-available-packages.ts:103 · packages/devtools-server/src/packages/get-available-packages.ts:152 — get-available-packages.ts:8
- packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/use-query-and-result-fields-in-list-hooks.test.ts:5 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/use-query-and-result-fields-in-useCustom-hook.test.ts:5 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/use-query-and-result-fields-in-useInfiniteList-hook.test.ts:5 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/use-query-and-result-fields-in-useOne-hook.test.ts:5 — use-query-and-result-fields-in-list-hooks.test.ts:5
- packages/airtable/refine.config.js:42 · packages/appwrite/refine.config.js:32 · packages/graphql/refine.config.js:68 — refine.config.js:42
- packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/auth-bindings-type-to-provider.test.ts:14 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/mutation-result-to-mutation-property.test.ts:7 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/remove-useNewQueryKeys-from-refine-options.test.ts:14 · packages/codemod/src/transformations/v5/remove-v3LegacyAuthProviderCompatible-from-auth-hooks.test.ts:14 — auth-bindings-type-to-provider.test.ts:14
- packages/antd/refine.config.js:396 · packages/chakra-ui/refine.config.js:361 — refine.config.js:396
What to do
- Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R11 · Import Boundaries
- packages/antd/tsup.config.ts:6 reaches into another package with a relative path (../shared/remove-test-ids-plugin) — import the package by name instead. — tsup.config.ts:6
- packages/antd/tsup.config.ts:7 reaches into another package with a relative path (../shared/dayjs-esm-replace-plugin) — import the package by name instead. — tsup.config.ts:7
- packages/antd/tsup.config.ts:8 reaches into another package with a relative path (../shared/mark-as-external-plugin) — import the package by name instead. — tsup.config.ts:8
- packages/chakra-ui/tsup.config.ts:3 reaches into another package with a relative path (../shared/mark-as-external-plugin) — import the package by name instead. — tsup.config.ts:3
- packages/chakra-ui/tsup.config.ts:4 reaches into another package with a relative path (../shared/remove-test-ids-plugin) — import the package by name instead. — tsup.config.ts:4
- packages/chakra-ui/tsup.config.ts:5 reaches into another package with a relative path (../shared/tabler-cjs-replace-plugin) — import the package by name instead. — tsup.config.ts:5
- packages/chakra-ui/tsup.config.ts:6 reaches into another package with a relative path (../shared/dayjs-esm-replace-plugin) — import the package by name instead. — tsup.config.ts:6
- packages/core/tsup.config.ts:3 reaches into another package with a relative path (../shared/lodash-replace-plugin) — import the package by name instead. — tsup.config.ts:3
What to do
- Fix the listed violations: import through public entries (package exports / slice index), never reach into another layer or package's internals.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×8) — check-package.ts:1, index.tsx:44, index.ts:105, …
What to do
- Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files
What to do
- Split the oversized components into smaller, focused ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage
- No test imports this module directly or transitively — its behavior is unverified. (×8) — mui.ts, fix-v4-deprecations.ts, data-table-filter.tsx, …
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗
What to do
- Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code
- Unreachable from the 48 application, 70 tooling and 867 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on your build/type-check — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
- no import path from any entry point (48 application, 70 tooling, 867 test roots considered) (×7) — mui.ts, fix-v4-deprecations.ts, data-table-filter.tsx, …
What to do
- Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
- Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. (×3) — mark-as-external-plugin.ts:1, dayjs-esm-replace-plugin.ts:1, vitest.setup.ts:3
- Declared in the root/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — dead weight and attack surface. Verify against build tooling before removing. (×3)
- Every import is type-only — move it to devDependencies. — index.ts:1
What to do
- Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R9 · Circular Imports
- packages/antd/src/components/crud/create/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/crud/edit/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/crud/index.ts → packages/antd/src/components/crud/list/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/crud/show/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/fields/file/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/fields/index.ts → packages/antd/src/components/index.ts → packages/antd/src/components/pages/auth/components/forgotPassword/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/pages/auth/components/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/pages/auth/components/login/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/pages/auth/components/register/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/pages/auth/components/updatePassword/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/pages/auth/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/pages/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/themedLayout/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/themedLayout/sider/index.tsx → packages/antd/src/components/crud/create/index.tsx — index.tsx
- packages/antd/src/hooks/index.ts → packages/antd/src/hooks/table/index.ts → packages/antd/src/hooks/table/useEditableTable/index.ts → packages/antd/src/hooks/table/useEditableTable/useEditableTable.ts → packages/antd/src/hooks/index.ts — index.ts
- packages/antd/test/index.tsx → packages/antd/test/index.tsx — index.tsx
- packages/chakra-ui/src/components/crud/create/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/crud/edit/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/crud/index.ts → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/crud/list/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/crud/show/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/fields/file/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/fields/index.ts → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/index.ts → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/pages/auth/components/forgotPassword/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/pages/auth/components/index.ts → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/pages/auth/components/login/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/pages/auth/components/register/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/pages/auth/components/updatePassword/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/pages/auth/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/pages/index.ts → packages/chakra-ui/src/components/crud/create/index.tsx — index.tsx
- packages/chakra-ui/test/index.tsx → packages/chakra-ui/test/index.tsx — index.tsx
- packages/cli/src/update-notifier/index.tsx → packages/cli/src/update-notifier/utils.ts → packages/cli/src/update-notifier/index.tsx — index.tsx
- packages/core/src/components/authenticated/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/canAccess/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/containers/index.ts → packages/core/src/components/containers/refine/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/index.ts → packages/core/src/components/pages/auth/components/forgotPassword/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/pages/auth/components/index.ts → packages/core/src/components/pages/auth/components/login/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/pages/auth/components/register/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/pages/auth/components/updatePassword/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/pages/auth/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/pages/error/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/pages/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/telemetry/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/undoableQueue/index.tsx → packages/core/src/contexts/undoableQueue/index.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/auditLog/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auditLog/useLog/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/useForgotPassword/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/useGetIdentity/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/useIsAuthenticated/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/useLogin/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/useLogout/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/useOnError/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/useRegister/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/useUpdateIdentity/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/auth/useUpdatePassword/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/breadcrumb/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/button/delete-button/index.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/button/index.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/button/navigation-button/index.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/button/refresh-button/index.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/data/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useApiUrl.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useCreate.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useCreateMany.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useCustom.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useCustomMutation.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useDelete.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useDeleteMany.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useInfiniteList.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useList.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useMany.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useOne.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useUpdate.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/data/useUpdateMany.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/export/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/form/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/import/index.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/invalidate/index.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/live/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/live/useResourceSubscription/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/menu/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/menu/useMenu.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/navigation/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/notification/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/notification/useCancelNotification/index.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/notification/useHandleNotification/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/redirection/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/show/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/useLoadingOvertime/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/useSelect/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/useTable/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/useTelemetryData/index.ts → packages/core/src/components/authenticated/index.tsx — index.tsx
- packages/core/src/components/link/index.tsx → packages/core/src/hooks/router/index.ts → packages/core/src/hooks/router/use-link/index.tsx → packages/core/src/components/link/index.tsx — index.tsx
What to do
- Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 71% | Adequate — gated by D3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 75% | Strong | Strongest area. |
| Readiness | 20% | Critical — gated by D8, D9, R8, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 55% | Adequate — gated by D29, D36, D38 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 54 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — no source files detected — code composition not applicable
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — no csproj graph available
- AX4 Dependency direction — no csproj graph available
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Zero projects and zero LoC mean the code is trivially empty; bounded contexts are not needed.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — No .NET solution found; no NuGet dependencies to scan for vulnerabilities.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — No production classes were analyzable, so cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured (the solution likely failed to load or has no production code).
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — no C# methods found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a pnpm lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 105 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:54
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:55
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:56
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:63
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:65
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:72
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:91
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:92
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:93
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:98
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:116
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:135
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:136
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:137
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:142
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:160
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:179
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:180
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:181
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:186
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:204
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:223
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:224
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:225
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-examples.yml:230
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] documentation/pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: KSV-0014 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0118 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0118 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
D18 · Solution Shape
- Dimension evaluation failed
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Warning — 97 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: docgen.js ↔ docgen.ts documentation/plugins/docgen.js
- Change coupling: e2e.ts ↔ index.d.ts cypress/support/e2e.ts
- Change coupling: index.ts ↔ integrations.ts documentation/src/assets/integration-icons/index.ts
- Change coupling: map.tsx ↔ check-package.ts packages/live-previews/src/scope/map.tsx
- Change coupling: preview.tsx ↔ check-package.ts packages/live-previews/pages/preview.tsx
- Change coupling: index.tsx ↔ index.ts packages/cli/src/commands/check-updates/index.tsx
- Change coupling: index.tsx ↔ index.tsx packages/mui/src/components/buttons/edit/index.tsx
- Change coupling: index.tsx ↔ index.tsx packages/mui/src/components/buttons/create/index.tsx
- Change coupling: index.tsx ↔ index.tsx packages/mui/src/components/buttons/clone/index.tsx
- Change coupling: index.tsx ↔ index.tsx packages/mui/src/components/buttons/clone/index.tsx
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0012 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0104 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0117 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0125 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
D20 · ADR Quality
- Context/problem and consequences/trade-offs are both absent from the visible text documentation/blog/2022-02-22-refine-invoice-generator.md
- Context/problem and consequences/trade-offs are both absent from the visible text documentation/blog/2022-03-01-refine-invoice-generator-p2.md
- Context/problem and consequences/trade-offs are both absent from the visible text documentation/blog/2022-10-07-responsive-navbar.md
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: plugins/blog-plugin.js documentation/plugins/blog-plugin.js:0
- FileTooLong: public/workbox-eac1af49.js examples/blog-next-refine-pwa/public/workbox-eac1af49.js:0
- FileTooLong: blog-post-page/index.js documentation/src/components/blog/blog-post-page/index.js:0
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- _compress (cyclomatic 38) documentation/static/workers/lz-worker.js:133
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- _decompress (cyclomatic 32) documentation/static/workers/lz-worker.js:403
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- _compress (cognitive 124) documentation/static/workers/lz-worker.js:133
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- _decompress (cognitive 68) documentation/static/workers/lz-worker.js:403
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- injectSitemapLastmod (cognitive 16) documentation/plugins/blog-plugin.js:550
D20 · ADR Quality
- The decision (web application with Supabase/Refine backend and React frontend) is stated but no consequences/trade-offs are given documentation/blog/2021-11-12-issue-tracker-refine.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision and consequences/trade-offs are absent from the visible text documentation/blog/2021-12-22-base64-upload.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The decision/consequences section (how to display the array as a table and any trade-offs) is not shown before the clip; cannot be flagged as missing documentation/blog/2022-01-18-csv-import.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The title 'Top React JS Frameworks Every Developer Should Know' is a marketing-style banner with no decision or consequences; it is a comparison post rather than an ADR documentation/blog/2022-02-21-top-react-frameworks.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs are not visible before the clip marker (the body ends with a review list and clips) documentation/blog/2022-03-16-internal-tool-frameworks.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs are not visible before the clip (the body ends in install steps and the clip marker) documentation/blog/2022-03-22-refine-with-react95.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Context/problem (the express/server setup and why multipart/form-data upload matters) is present but embedded in code rather than explained; consequences/trade-offs are not shown documentation/blog/2022-03-29-react-hook-form-upload.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision and consequences fall below the threshold (only context/problem plus a one-paragraph decision + features are present) documentation/blog/2022-04-29-top-react-component-libraries-and-frameworks-every-developer-should-know.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No architecture decision; only a promotional banner lists ten free tools with no context/problem and no consequences documentation/blog/2022-05-02-high-quality-free-resources.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The title 'Best Open-Source Headless CMS to Try for Your Next Application' is informative but the body is essentially a list of open-source headless platforms with no context/problem and no consequences/trade-offs (e.g. learning curve, cost, plugin ecosystem) are addressed documentation/blog/2022-05-05-open-source-headless-cms.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Not an architecture decision record — it is a company announcement post, not an ADR (context/problem, explicit decision, consequences) documentation/blog/2022-06-10-weve-raised-dollar1m-seed-funding.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is an introduction stating why Node.js matters before diving into ES6 features; there is no explicit decision or consequences section (e.g. trade-offs of learning ES6 vs newer JS versions) documentation/blog/2022-09-06-nodejs-developer.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No context/problem and no explicit decision (what Refine will do) are present documentation/blog/2022-10-04-hacktoberfest.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs of using tooltips (e.g. accessibility, performance) are not visible before the clip documentation/blog/2022-11-29-mui-tooltip.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The decision (how to copy files in Docker) and its consequences/trade-offs are embedded in the How-to section with no dedicated Context/Problem or Consequences section documentation/blog/2022-12-28-docker-copy.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is primarily promotional copy with no context/problem and no explicit decision (the hackathon itself is the decision), plus consequences/trade-offs are absent documentation/blog/2023-01-06-hackaton-january.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a hackathon winner announcement with no context/problem and no explicit decision (the winners are announced), only a one-line description that reads like a press release documentation/blog/2023-02-28-hackathon-january-winners.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is primarily announcement content with no context/problem and no consequences/trade-offs sections documentation/blog/2023-03-13-refine-v4-announcement.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Vague title and no context/problem section describing the invoicing problem being solved by this architecture decision documentation/blog/2023-04-10-refine-invoicer-1.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The decision (CRUD pages for Company/Client/Contact resources using Strapi dataProvider/authProvider props) and consequences/trade-offs are present but the visible text is mostly implementation detail rather than a clear context/problem statement documentation/blog/2023-04-12-refine-invoicer-3.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a post/blog describing what will be written rather than an explicit decision with consequences (e.g. Strapi collection/authorization setup and its trade-offs) documentation/blog/2023-04-13-refine-invoicer-4.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No consequences/trade-offs section (e.g. performance cost of rendering PDFs in a modal) present among visible text documentation/blog/2023-04-14-refine-invoicer-5.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is pure celebration content with no context/problem and no explicit decision (the hackathon's purpose, what it addresses, or any constraint being refined), only a list of winners and prizes documentation/blog/2023-06-14-refine-hackathon-2.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- This is a celebratory announcement of winners with no context/problem and no decision (the winning projects are described but there is no architecture or design decision being made), only a list of the top five projects documentation/blog/2023-08-04-refine-hackathon-2-winners.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The title 'How to use Docker Exec command?' is informative but the body reads more like a list of steps and prerequisites for running the docker exec command rather than a focused decision with consequences documentation/blog/2023-08-18-docker-exec.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a feature-rich product description with no context/problem and no explicit decision (e.g., what problem this solves or why Refine/GraphQL/Ant Design were chosen), only an authoring guide documentation/blog/2023-10-02-refine-crm-overview.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a runnable Getting started guide with installation steps (CDN, npm install + import), markup example, and initialization code but no context/problem statement or consequences/trade-offs documentation/blog/2023-12-07-swiper-js.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs (e.g. learning curve for non-CLI users) are not visible before the scanner clips the document documentation/blog/2023-12-15-kubectl-cheat-sheet.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a tutorial-style guide with only one decision (project planning and concept development) and no explicit decision or consequences; it reads like a long introduction rather than a focused ADR documentation/blog/2023-12-26-build-an-app.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision/consequences are present but thin: the body states "you might need to build your own image" and ends before covering consequences such as container-registry setup cost or the alternative of using a ready-built image; trade-offs are not fully articulated documentation/blog/2024-01-22-k8s-postgres.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a Docker cheat sheet with installation, version-checking, image-searching/pulling/removal, and a bulleted list of commands; it contains no context/problem statement or consequences/trade-offs. documentation/blog/2024-02-12-docker-cheat-sheet.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs are absent despite being a real CSS alignment tutorial documentation/blog/2024-02-13-css-vertical-align.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs (e.g. learning curve for distributed systems, remote server dependency) are not visible before the clip documentation/blog/2024-02-26-version-control.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a tutorial-style guide with an explicit table-of-contents and detailed subsections (What is CSS Box Shadow / horizontal/vertical offsets / blur radius / spread radius), but the Decision section and consequences/trade-offs are absent; only context/problem and examples are present documentation/blog/2024-02-28-css-box-shadow.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body ends before a decision statement and consequences/trade-offs are visible only beyond the clip marker; the explicit decision and its trade-offs are not yet stated in the visible portion documentation/blog/2024-03-05-css-wrap-text.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is mostly installation and setup steps (virtual environment, install prerequisites, DRF configuration), with only a brief overview/why-choose section and a one-line API creation heading; the context/problem and consequences/trade-offs sections are not present documentation/blog/2024-04-03-django-rest.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The visible content is a loose tutorial rather than an explicit Architecture Decision (context/problem + decision + consequences) document documentation/blog/2024-04-29-nest-js.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a pure announcement with no context/problem framing and no explicit decision; it reads like an investor pitch rather than an ADR documentation/blog/2024-05-06-investment-announce.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is mostly setup/installation content with no context/problem framing or consequences/trade-offs documentation/blog/2024-05-07-graphql-with-django.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision and consequences are absent (the visible text is only an introduction plus prerequisites and a table-of-contents with no explicit decision) documentation/blog/2024-05-24-google-lighthouse.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is mostly setup and wireframe content (initializing Refine, selecting options, showing welcome page), with no context/problem or explicit decision/consequences sections documentation/blog/2024-06-24-react-content-filtering.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is mostly setup/installation content (React router V6 prerequisites, installing react-router-dom@6, configuring BrowserRouter in index.js) and routes before the decision/usage of useNavigate hook appears documentation/blog/2024-06-24-router-use-navigate.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a feature list (Streamlined Library Integration, Account-Based Boilerplate Management, Continuous Updates and Maintenance, Batteries loaded, Quickly share previews, Configure in the browser) with no context/problem statement or consequences/trade-offs documentation/blog/2024-07-25-refine-new-part-1.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs (e.g. learning curve, ecosystem/tooling gap) are not visible before the clip documentation/blog/2024-07-30-vite-js.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The decision (how to install/use Zustand in React projects) and consequences/trade-offs are present but buried under the 'What is Zustand?' explanation; a dedicated Getting started section would make this ADR clear documentation/blog/2024-07-31-zustand.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body begins with setup (project setup, refine.new tool, project steps), but it does not yet state the decision or its consequences; the visible content is mostly boilerplate scaffolding before any real component code appears documentation/blog/2024-08-04-react-tooltip.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is primarily installation and attribute-reference content with no context/problem framing or consequences/trade-offs documentation/blog/2024-09-06-htmx.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision and consequences are present but thin: the body states what TanStack Table and React Table are (headless, framework agnostic), with a list of covered topics ('Advanced Column Customization in React Table', 'Accessibility Features in React Table') and ends before stating any concrete adapter usage or trade-offs. documentation/blog/2024-09-06-react-table.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision and consequences are absent from the visible text (the body is mostly installation steps for Next.js setup with MantineProvider, no explicit decision or trade-offs) documentation/blog/2024-09-09-mantine-ui.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs are implied in the comparison but not explicitly stated (e.g. no npm ecosystem tools, learning curve for new users) documentation/blog/2024-09-11-pnpm-guide.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The decision (which frameworks to master) is stated in the title but the body gives no rationale for choosing them over alternatives and no consequences/trade-offs documentation/blog/2024-09-16-frameworks-2024.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision and consequences are absent from the visible text (only frameworks with links and a brief framework description appear) documentation/blog/2024-09-18-admin-panel-frameworks.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs of choosing gRPC vs REST are not visible before the clip documentation/blog/2024-09-24-grpc-vs-rest.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a tutorial table of contents and prerequisites listing plus an introductory paragraph that states what one will learn but gives no context/problem or explicit decision; the real content (the nine covered topics) is cut by the scanner clip marker documentation/blog/2024-10-22-astro-js.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is an explanatory tutorial rather than a formally structured ADR; trade-offs and consequences are not present in the visible text (only 'round corners' vs elliptical corners explained) documentation/blog/2024-10-23-css-rounded-corners.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs (e.g. over-context usage, performance cost) are not visible before the clip marker documentation/blog/2024-10-30-react-context.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is a long documentation post about using the keyof operator to define advanced types in TypeScript with examples (the title 'Building components with Radix UI' is unrelated), not an ADR documentation/blog/2024-11-06-radix-ui.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The decision (introducing six editors with pros/cons) is stated but the body clips mid-Introduction before a dedicated comparison table or full coverage of each editor's strengths and weaknesses documentation/blog/2024-11-11-online-ide.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Consequences/trade-offs (e.g. learning curve for Go/parallel model) are not visible before the clip documentation/blog/2024-11-12-esbuild.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is mostly setup/project-setup content with no context/problem framing or consequences/trade-offs documentation/blog/2024-12-18-tailwind-grid.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision/consequences (getting started with the card component, variants like outlined/image cards) fall past the clip marker and cannot be confirmed missing documentation/blog/2024-12-26-mui-card.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision and consequences are absent from the visible text (only introduction + table-of-contents plus a one-line description of the article's purpose) documentation/blog/2024-12-31-js-substring.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The decision (how to install and use React Slick in a project) and consequences/trade-offs are present but deferred past the clip; only context/problem and an informative title are visible documentation/blog/2025-01-02-react-slick.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body is mostly benefit-driven with no context/problem and no explicit decision (e.g. "use FastAPI instead of Django/Flask") documentation/blog/2025-01-09-fast-api.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The title 'Essentials of TypeScript Classes' is informative but the body is primarily a tutorial listing features (type annotations, readonly fields, parameter properties, generics, implements), with no context/problem and no consequences/trade-offs section documentation/blog/2025-01-13-ts-classes.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The decision (what Bolt.new does and why it matters) is clear but the body ends before covering consequences/trade-offs such as cost, token limits, or how it compares to alternatives documentation/blog/2025-02-05-bolt-new.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No context/problem section (the body begins with an announcement of Claude 4 without stating the problem being solved) and no consequences/trade-offs documentation/blog/2025-05-26-claude4.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body clips before the decision's consequences/trade-offs are visible (the article 'explores both their successes and the obstacles they encountered along the way' but the actual trade-offs of competing against giants like Google/Apple/Mozilla are not shown in the excerpt) documentation/blog/2025-10-08-arc-browser-journey.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- The body compares React Query/TanStack Query/SWR but does not state the problem they solve and only briefly states the decision (React Query is TanStack Query), with no consequences/trade-offs documentation/blog/2025-12-01-tanstack-vs-swr.md
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
Recommendation — 18 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: KSV-0003 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0004 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0011 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0015 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0016 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0018 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0020 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0021 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0030 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0106 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0110 documentation/k8s/refine-documentation/templates/deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: DS-0026 examples/store/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 examples/with-material-ui-vite/Dockerfile
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 1 finding(s)
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | — |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 156 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet (no .NET solution) | — | dotnet (no .NET solution): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 21 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 321 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |