Reinforced.Tecture — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

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

reinforced/Reinforced.Tecture carries serious gaps (38%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.

It is strongest in Architecture (96%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.

The area that most needs attention is Security (22%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Maturity (44%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); 5 High finding(s) (Static Analysis (SAST)); Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation).

For scale: Medium (~27,008 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.2 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (96%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 75% Strong Architecture 96% ★ Exemplary Maturity 44% Weak · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 48% Weak · gated by P3 Security 22% ⚠ Critical · gated by D29, D36, C1 Performance 60% Adequate

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.

Security 22% · 46% weightMaturity 44% · 25% weightReadiness 48% · 14% weightPerformance 60% · 8% weightCode Health 75% · 4% weightArchitecture 96% · 2% weight

Raise Security 22 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 38 → ~52.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 9%Plumbing 42%Tests 10%Generated 39%

New since the last scan (1+)

1 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-29) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D24 · LLM evaluation failed

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €8,600–€42,000

Cost to rebuild	€8,600–€42,000 (0.1–0.3 person-years (143–441 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Low — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 38% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · 59% boilerplate · 23% straight-line · 18% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€25,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 22% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Low (×0.9) — library/CLI × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).

+14.9 pts · Medium effort · Data Protection

Resolve the 5 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (3), release.yml (2).

+5.8 pts · Low effort · Static Analysis (SAST)

Resolve the 8 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore.csproj, Reinforced.Tecture.Testing.csproj, Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.csproj.

+3.9 pts · Low effort · Documentation Quality

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Medium asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 22%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.2 person-years rebuild (27,008 LoC) · weakest lens: Security 22%

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

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

26 modules, 64 dependencies — 1 dependency cycle, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Strong

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.3 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 7.3 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.8 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 10.0 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.5 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 9.5 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 9.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 8.7 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0

The Bad

X3 · Repo Exception handling 6.9

The Ugly

X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 4.7

At a glance — Architecture · 96% · Exemplary

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.4 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 7.4 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.2 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 44% · Weak · gated by D34, M2

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.0

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.7

The Ugly

D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 4.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 48% · Weak · gated by P3

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 8.9 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 7.2 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0

The Bad

D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 5.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 22% · Critical · gated by D29, D36, C1

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0

The Bad

D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 6.9

The Ugly

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 4.0 D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0 C1 · Repo Data Protection 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 60% · Adequate

The Bad

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.2 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 6.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	6	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	5	High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	1	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys in a vault, or skip if infrastructure handles this. Next, resolve the five high-priority static analysis findings, beginning with the build and release pipelines. Then, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location. Finally, add a quick-start section to the root README and address low-priority documentation quality warnings.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).	+14.9 pts	Medium	Data Protection
Resolve the 5 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (3), release.yml (2).	+5.8 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 8 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore.csproj, Reinforced.Tecture.Testing.csproj, Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.csproj.	+3.9 pts	Low	Documentation Quality
Resolve the 5 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.	+3.6 pts	Low	Dependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.	+3.5 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with AsyncExtensions.cs.	+3.5 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 5 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+2.8 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with ToyFactoryDbContext.cs.	+2.7 pts	Low	Secret Scanning

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 39 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 26% mixed · 74% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
.github/workflows/build.yml	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
Reinforced.Tecture/Cloning/DeepCloneOperator.cs	5.8	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
.github/workflows/release.yml	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/2_Visit/StrokeVisitor.AutoJoinMethodCall.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Reinforced.Tecture.Tests/Reinforced.Tecture.Tests.csproj	6.4	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Validation/ValidationGenerator.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: Dead code: ComaSeparatedChecks
Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs	7.1	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: AsyncExtensions.Call (cognitive 20)
Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Data/ToyFactoryDbContext.cs	7.2	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential
Reinforced.Tecture/Queries/Hashbox.cs	7.8	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: Hashbox.Put (cognitive 17)
Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory/Controllers/NomenclatureController.cs	7.9	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: missing-or-broken-authorization
Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests/WarehouseTests/ManageTests.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): CreateMeasurementUnit
Reinforced.Tecture/Commands/Pipeline.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Reinforced.Tecture/Services/TectureServiceBase.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
Reinforced.Tecture/TypeExtensions.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: HackComment
Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/2_Visit/StrokeVisitor.Utility.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: IsNullConstant
Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Data/Format/CodeFormatter.Infra.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: IsWithinAny
Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Validation/Extensions.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: Extensions
Playground/Domains/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic/Services/Nomenclature.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: Sample
Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests/WarehouseTests/TestAnonymousQuery/TestAnonymousQuery_TestData.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: TestAnonymousQuery_TestData
Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests/WarehouseTests/TestAnonymousQuery/TestAnonymousQuery_Validation.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: TestAnonymousQuery_Validation

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. 50 of 53 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 53 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D39AX1AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8C1GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P4P6P8PF1PF2PF3X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 59 of 96 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
jscpd	Code duplication	—	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.302	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.302	✓ 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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fc871-5093-7bc3-9601-fe858f919dc0.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
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.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
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.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
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.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall at 26. A further 3 method(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 SqlOperatorExtensions.ToSqlOperator at 21 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.

StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall (cyclomatic 26)Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/2_Visit/StrokeVisitor.AutoJoinMethodCall.cs:18

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

18 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall at 48.

AsyncExtensions.Call (cognitive 20) · ×3Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs:16

StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall (cognitive 48)Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/2_Visit/StrokeVisitor.AutoJoinMethodCall.cs:18

ChannelMultiplexer.Validate (cognitive 27)Reinforced.Tecture/Channels/Multiplexer/ChannelMultiplexer.cs:216

TraceValidator.TheEnd (cognitive 23)Reinforced.Tecture/Testing/Validation/TraceValidator.cs:71

QueryRecord.Describe (cognitive 22)Reinforced.Tecture/Tracing/QueryRecord.cs:130

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

What to do

Resolve the 3 AsyncExtensions.Call (cognitive 20) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with AsyncExtensions.cs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall (cognitive 48) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with StrokeVisitor.AutoJoinMethodCall.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ChannelMultiplexer.Validate (cognitive 27) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ChannelMultiplexer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: HashboxReinforced.Tecture/Queries/Hashbox.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)Runtimes/Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore/Aspects/DirectSql/Command/EFCore_DirectSql_CommandAspect.cs:39

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Channels

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 55 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

28 test methods: 28 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 skipped (1 with a documented reason), 1 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 28 tests.

No assertions (empty test): CreateMeasurementUnitPlayground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests/WarehouseTests/ManageTests.cs:47

Skipped (documented): TestNestedSQLQueryPlayground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests/WarehouseTests/ManageTests.cs:156

Mock framework: Moq

What to do

Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ManageTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene7.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

10 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 5 deprecated packages.

Deprecated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore · ×5

Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore · ×10

What to do

Resolve the 5 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 secret(s) detected.

Leaked secret: hardcoded-credentialPlayground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Data/ToyFactoryDbContext.cs:10

What to do

Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with ToyFactoryDbContext.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 10 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

7 deducted debt markers + 8 dead symbols across 23474 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.5.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×2Reinforced.Tecture.Tests/Reinforced.Tecture.Tests.csproj:5

EmptyCatchBlockReinforced.Tecture/Cloning/DeepCloneOperator.cs:121

Dead code: CloneAndDefer · ×8Reinforced.Tecture/Cloning/DeepCloneOperator.cs:135

TodoCommentAspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/2_Visit/StrokeVisitor.AutoJoinMethodCall.cs:102

CommentedOutCodeReinforced.Tecture/Commands/Pipeline.cs:32

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

14 projects, 323 source files, 28779 hand-written lines of code (23474 production / 5305 test), plus 20684 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 50 inter-project edges.

Thin analysable surface across projects

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The single README is a thin one-paragraph introduction plus an experimental framework tagline and NuGet install commands. It mentions benefits for each reader role (architect, analyst, DevOps, QA, regular engineer) with links to wiki pages but does not explain what Tecture actually does or how it differs from existing frameworks; the architecture/design docs are absent and XML coverage is low across aspects/orm/directsql/runtimes/testing/samples. The body clips mid-benefit list, so benefits plus any outline sections are present but unshown.

Low XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore · ×8Runtimes/Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore/Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore.csproj

XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Tecture · ×4Reinforced.Tecture/Reinforced.Tecture.csproj

What to do

Resolve the 8 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore.csproj, Reinforced.Tecture.Testing.csproj, Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

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

2 of 14 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

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

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

26 % of calls cross a namespace and 0 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

6 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 1 medium, 0 low.

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×5.github/workflows/build.yml:15detected by semgrep finding

Medium: missing-or-broken-authorizationPlayground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory/Controllers/NomenclatureController.cs:18detected by semgrep finding

What to do

Resolve the 5 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (3), release.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with NomenclatureController.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.

Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 9.0.1 · ×5detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

Resolve the 5 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

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

65 of 65 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs.

Dormant codebase

Largest orphaned fileAspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs

What to do

Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with AsyncExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

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

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

Unpinned build actions

Workflow token permissions not restricted

Secret passed as a command-line argument

No build provenance

No artifact signing

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

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 Workflow token permissions not restricted finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Secret passed as a command-line argument finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

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

4 of 1876 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 4 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetPlayground/Domains/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Warehouse/Services/Supply.cs:64

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

`IAsyncQueryExecutor` declares 67 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IAsyncExecutor.cs:15

What to do

Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C1 · Data Protection0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.

No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.

What to do

Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs9.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`Before` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — SchemaInterpolator.cs:25
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×14) — HashExtensions.cs:36, Pipeline.cs:32, Pipeline.cs:33, …
A test is skipped ("For debug purposes") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — ManageTests.cs:156

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 14 of 14 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

What to do

Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy8.0 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Check the coverage dimensions first: if this repo has no test suite yet, that is the finding and this row follows from it. If a suite does exist, make the runner step explicit so the gate is unambiguous.

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`dotnet test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.

351/474 types (74%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

No benchmark suite was found. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 16 use(s) across 47,557 production line(s) (~0.3/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Only 0/91 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.

What to do

In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Only 11/14 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×3) — TectureServiceBase.cs:130, NomenclatureController.cs:59, NomenclatureController.cs:86

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — DeepCloneOperator.cs:121

What to do

Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types4.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

2/6 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	75%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	96%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Maturity	44%	Weak — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	48%	Weak — gated by P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	22%	Critical — gated by D29, D36, C1	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	60%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.

Not included — 45 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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 — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
D11 Test Reliability — Test runner surfaced no tests
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
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
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 15 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×5

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:15 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:17 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v1 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:25 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/release.yml:11 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/release.yml:13 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v1 --jq .sha`.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×5

High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 9.0.1 — Newtonsoft.Json 9.0.1 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.1.0 — System.Net.Http 4.1.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates 4.1.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates 4.1.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×2

NoWarnInCsproj Reinforced.Tecture.Tests/Reinforced.Tecture.Tests.csproj:5 — CS1591 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Reinforced.Tecture.Tests/Reinforced.Tecture.Tests.csproj:5 — CS1573 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×1

No assertions (empty test): CreateMeasurementUnit Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests/WarehouseTests/ManageTests.cs:47 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.

D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×1

Leaked secret: hardcoded-credential Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Data/ToyFactoryDbContext.cs:10 — hardcoded-credential detected. Treat the value as compromised: it is readable by everyone who has ever had the repository, and deleting the line does not un-publish it. In order — (1) REVOKE it at whatever issued it and issue a replacement, which is the only step that actually closes the exposure; (2) load the replacement at run time from your platform's secret store or the process environment instead of from the tree, so no future value is committable; (3) remove the file or line and add its path to the repository's ignore rules, so it cannot come back; (4) if the value was ever live, purge it from the history as well, since a clone taken before the deletion still carries it. If this is instead a FIXTURE — key material generated for tests and valid nowhere — then the exposure is nil and the fix is to make that legible: generate it in test setup, or keep it under a test-data path, so a reader (and this scan) can tell it from the real thing.

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×1

EmptyCatchBlock Reinforced.Tecture/Cloning/DeepCloneOperator.cs:121 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.

Warning — 54 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×8

Dead code: CloneAndDefer Reinforced.Tecture/Cloning/DeepCloneOperator.cs:135 — Method CloneAndDefer — no references found in solution.
Dead code: IsNullConstant Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/2_Visit/StrokeVisitor.Utility.cs:28 — Method IsNullConstant — no references found in solution.
Dead code: IsWithinAny Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Data/Format/CodeFormatter.Infra.cs:59 — Method IsWithinAny — no references found in solution.
Dead code: Extensions Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Validation/Extensions.cs:8 — NamedType Extensions — no references found in solution.
Dead code: ComaSeparatedChecks Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Validation/ValidationGenerator.cs:166 — Method ComaSeparatedChecks — no references found in solution.
Dead code: Sample Playground/Domains/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic/Services/Nomenclature.cs:27 — NamedType Sample — no references found in solution.
Dead code: TestAnonymousQuery_TestData Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests/WarehouseTests/TestAnonymousQuery/TestAnonymousQuery_TestData.cs:8 — NamedType TestAnonymousQuery_TestData — no references found in solution.
Dead code: TestAnonymousQuery_Validation Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests/WarehouseTests/TestAnonymousQuery/TestAnonymousQuery_Validation.cs:8 — NamedType TestAnonymousQuery_Validation — no references found in solution.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×8

Low XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore Runtimes/Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore/Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore.csproj — Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore: 13 % XML-doc coverage (15/118).
Low XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Tecture.Testing Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing.csproj — Reinforced.Tecture.Testing: 38 % XML-doc coverage (68/181).
Low XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.csproj — Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/21).
Low XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic Playground/Domains/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.csproj — Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic: 3 % XML-doc coverage (1/31).
Low XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Data Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Data/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Data.csproj — Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Data: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/13).
Low XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Warehouse Playground/Domains/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Warehouse/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Warehouse.csproj — Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Warehouse: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/49).
Low XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Channels Playground/Domains/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Channels/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Channels.csproj — Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Channels: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/9).
Low XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Cache Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Cache/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Cache.csproj — Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Cache: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/9).

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×5

Deprecated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 5.0.13 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design 5.0.13 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational 5.0.13 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql — Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql 5.0.3 — Legacy
Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.0 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `xunit.v3`; migrate the reference to it.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AsyncExtensions.Call (cognitive 20) · ×3

AsyncExtensions.Call (cognitive 20) Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs:16 — AsyncExtensions.Call has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 34). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
AsyncExtensions.Call (cognitive 20) Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs:60 — AsyncExtensions.Call has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 82). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
AsyncExtensions.Call (cognitive 20) Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs:108 — AsyncExtensions.Call has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 129). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall (cyclomatic 26) · ×1

StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall (cyclomatic 26) Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/2_Visit/StrokeVisitor.AutoJoinMethodCall.cs:18 — StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D16 · Bus Factor · dormant codebase · ×1

dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate — All 54 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness).

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×1

TodoComment Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/2_Visit/StrokeVisitor.AutoJoinMethodCall.cs:102 — // todo - joins on many-to-many collections — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×1

CommentedOutCode Reinforced.Tecture/Commands/Pipeline.cs:32 — 16 consecutive commented-code lines

D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×1

BarePragmaDisable Reinforced.Tecture/Services/TectureServiceBase.cs:55 — #pragma warning disable 1998 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×1

HackComment Reinforced.Tecture/TypeExtensions.cs:63 — // HACK: The only way to detect anonymous types right now. — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall (cognitive 48) · ×1

StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall (cognitive 48) Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/2_Visit/StrokeVisitor.AutoJoinMethodCall.cs:18 — StrokeVisitor.VisitMethodCall has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChannelMultiplexer.Validate (cognitive 27) · ×1

ChannelMultiplexer.Validate (cognitive 27) Reinforced.Tecture/Channels/Multiplexer/ChannelMultiplexer.cs:216 — ChannelMultiplexer.Validate has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TraceValidator.TheEnd (cognitive 23) · ×1

TraceValidator.TheEnd (cognitive 23) Reinforced.Tecture/Testing/Validation/TraceValidator.cs:71 — TraceValidator.TheEnd has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · QueryRecord.Describe (cognitive 22) · ×1

QueryRecord.Describe (cognitive 22) Reinforced.Tecture/Tracing/QueryRecord.cs:130 — QueryRecord.Describe has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CSharpTestData.Get (cognitive 21) · ×1

CSharpTestData.Get (cognitive 21) Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Data/CSharpTestData.cs:93 — CSharpTestData.Get has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AsyncExtensions.Call2 (cognitive 20) · ×1

AsyncExtensions.Call2 (cognitive 20) Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs:155 — AsyncExtensions.Call2 has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 177). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AsyncExtensions.ContainsAsync (cognitive 20) · ×1

AsyncExtensions.ContainsAsync (cognitive 20) Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs:2128 — AsyncExtensions.ContainsAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 2149). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AsyncExtensions.ToDictionaryAsync (cognitive 20) · ×1

AsyncExtensions.ToDictionaryAsync (cognitive 20) Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs:2392 — AsyncExtensions.ToDictionaryAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 2419). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Generator.ProceedDictionary (cognitive 18) · ×1

Generator.ProceedDictionary (cognitive 18) Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Data/SyntaxGeneration/Generator.Static.cs:38 — Generator.ProceedDictionary has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TypeAssertionGenerator.AssertionForNotNull (cognitive 18) · ×1

TypeAssertionGenerator.AssertionForNotNull (cognitive 18) Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Validation/TypeAssertionGenerator.cs:48 — TypeAssertionGenerator.AssertionForNotNull has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Hashbox.Put (cognitive 17) · ×1

Hashbox.Put (cognitive 17) Reinforced.Tecture/Queries/Hashbox.cs:121 — Hashbox.Put has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Extensions.ParseStroke (cognitive 17) · ×1

Extensions.ParseStroke (cognitive 17) Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reveal/1_Parse/Extensions.cs:102 — Extensions.ParseStroke has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CSharpCodeTestDataGenerator.PayloadConstructionMethodBody (cognitive 17) · ×1

CSharpCodeTestDataGenerator.PayloadConstructionMethodBody (cognitive 17) Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Data/CSharpCodeTestDataGenerator.cs:253 — CSharpCodeTestDataGenerator.PayloadConstructionMethodBody has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CommandsDispatcher.DispatchAsync (cognitive 16) · ×1

CommandsDispatcher.DispatchAsync (cognitive 16) Reinforced.Tecture/Commands/CommandsDispatcher.cs:140 — CommandsDispatcher.DispatchAsync has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ValidationGenerator.Visit (cognitive 16) · ×1

ValidationGenerator.Visit (cognitive 16) Testing/Reinforced.Tecture.Testing/Validation/ValidationGenerator.cs:68 — ValidationGenerator.Visit has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected depth to be zero at the end of the JSON payload. There is an open JSON object or array that should be closed. Path: $.notable[4] | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 940.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · Medium · ×1

Medium: missing-or-broken-authorization Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory/Controllers/NomenclatureController.cs:18 — Anonymous access shouldn't be allowed unless explicit by design. Access control checks are missing and potentially can be bypassed. This finding violates the principle of least privilege or deny by default, where access should only be permitted for a specific set of roles or conforms to a custom policy or users. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1

TooManyMethods: Hashbox Reinforced.Tecture/Queries/Hashbox.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 253 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 36 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1

Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 5 floating ref(s) across 2 workflow file(s). Each floating ref is itemized at file:line by the SAST (D29) lens.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Workflow token permissions not restricted · ×1

Workflow token permissions not restricted — No workflow declares a `permissions:` block, so every job runs with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope (2 workflow file(s) checked). On a repository whose default is read/write, a compromised action or a malicious pull request inherits write access to code, issues, releases and packages. Declare a least-privilege `permissions:` block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of each workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Secret passed as a command-line argument · ×1

Secret passed as a command-line argument — 1 CI command(s) pass a credential as a bare command-line argument, where it is visible in the runner's process table to any other process on the host (and to anything that logs a command line): release.yml: dotnet nuget push "package/*.nupkg" -s https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json --skip-duplicate --api-key ${{ secrets.TECTURE_NUGET_KEY }}. Pass the credential through the environment instead (an `env:` mapping on the step, read by the tool from its own variable) or on stdin, so it never appears in an argument vector.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Runtimes/Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore/Aspects/DirectSql/Command/EFCore_DirectSql_CommandAspect.cs:39 — Runtimes/Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore/Aspects/DirectSql/Command/EFCore_DirectSql_CommandAspect.cs:39-46 | Runtimes/Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore/Aspects/DirectSql/Query/EFCore_DirectSql_QueryAspect.cs:56-63 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Runtimes/Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore/Aspects/DirectSql/Command/EFCore_DirectSql_CommandAspect.cs:39` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Channels — Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Channels: abstractness 0.75, instability 1.00, distance 0.75 — zone of uselessness — abstract and unstable, so it's likely unused.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — analyzer environment — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry). This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed; in the meantime, no coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us — add a collector to your test run and commit (or publish into the working tree) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output, and real coverage will be read.

Recommendation — 10 finding(s)

D11 · Test Reliability · Test runner surfaced no tests · ×1

Test runner surfaced no tests — Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) ran but surfaced none of this repository's 28 test method(s) to the runner, so flakiness couldn't be exercised. This is an analysis-environment limitation, not a finding about the tests.

D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1

Thin analysable surface across projects — 1 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Cache` with 36 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 94 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.47 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1

Bounded contexts not declared — At 23474 LoC across 14 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can 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"]`.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Split Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm · ×1

Split Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm — Aspects.Orm is large and sprawls across 13 unrelated namespaces despite the Orm aspect name. Suggested: by namespace: Tecture.Aspects.Orm.*

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 65 of 65 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 65 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Largest orphaned file · ×1

Largest orphaned file Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Queries/AsyncExtensions.cs — One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1

No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI — nothing binds a released artifact to the build that produced it, so a consumer cannot tell your artifact from a substituted one. On GitHub Actions, `actions/attest-build-provenance` (or slsa-github-generator) emits one from the job's own OIDC identity; elsewhere, run `cosign attest` over the released artifact from the release pipeline and publish the attestation beside it.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1

No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them, Authenticode via signtool, or `dotnet nuget sign` for packages) so consumers can verify what you built.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1

No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`sbom-tool generate` (install it with `dotnet tool install --global Microsoft.Sbom.DotNetTool`) or `dotnet CycloneDX` over the solution, `syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.

D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1

IL efficiency: 4 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget Playground/Domains/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Warehouse/Services/Supply.cs:64 — 4 of 1876 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Warehouse.Services.Supply.CreateResourceSupply @ Playground/Domains/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Logic.Warehouse/Services/Supply.cs:64, 504 IL instructions; large bodies don't JIT-inline, which pulled this dimension to 10.0/10; splitting the hottest bodies recovers the most.

Info — 17 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×10

Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 5.0.13 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore).
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design 5.0.13 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore).
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational 5.0.13 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Reinforced.Tecture.Runtimes.EFCore).
Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp 3.6.0 → 5.6.0 available (referenced by Reinforced.Tecture.Testing).
Outdated: Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql — Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql 5.0.3 → 9.0.0 available (referenced by Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Data).
Outdated: coverlet.collector — coverlet.collector 1.0.1 → 10.0.1 available (referenced by Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 16.2.0 → 18.8.1 available (referenced by Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests).
Outdated: xunit — xunit 2.4.0 → 2.9.3 available (referenced by Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests).
Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio — xunit.runner.visualstudio 2.4.0 → 3.1.5 available (referenced by Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests).
Outdated: Moq — Moq 4.16.1 → 4.20.72 available (referenced by Reinforced.Tecture.Tests).

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×4

XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Tecture Reinforced.Tecture/Reinforced.Tecture.csproj — Reinforced.Tecture: 61 % XML-doc coverage (314/511).
XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm.csproj — Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Orm: 86 % XML-doc coverage (671/779).
XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql.csproj — Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.DirectSql: 79 % XML-doc coverage (157/200).
XML-doc coverage: Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Time Aspects/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Time/Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Time.csproj — Reinforced.Tecture.Aspects.Time: 60 % XML-doc coverage (9/15).

D10 · Test Quality · Skipped (documented) · ×1

Skipped (documented): TestNestedSQLQuery Playground/Reinforced.Samples.ToyFactory.Tests/WarehouseTests/ManageTests.cs:156 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: For debug purposes

D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1

Mock framework: Moq — Reinforced.Tecture.Tests references Moq.

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

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

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
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 .	6	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list Reinforced.Tecture.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	5	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.	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	—

Run 019fc871-5093-7bc3-9601-fe858f919dc0 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Reinforced/Reinforced.Tecture

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Strong

At a glance — Architecture · 96% · Exemplary

At a glance — Maturity · 44% · Weak · gated by D34, M2

At a glance — Readiness · 48% · Weak · gated by P3

At a glance — Security · 22% · Critical · gated by D29, D36, C1

At a glance — Performance · 60% · Adequate

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts