Revo — 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.

revoframework/Revo carries serious risk (47%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (43%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Performance (43%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates (Domain vs controller coverage); Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it (Async & latency hygiene); readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green)… (Deployment & Rollback).

For scale: Medium (~27,440 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.4 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

Code Health 50% Adequate · gated by X4, X5 Architecture 78% Strong Maturity 55% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 43% Weak · gated by P3, P9 Security 74% Adequate · gated by D30 Domain Modelling 60% Adequate · gated by DM2 Performance 43% Weak · gated by PF3

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

Readiness 43% · 46% weightPerformance 43% · 25% weightCode Health 50% · 14% weightMaturity 55% · 8% weightDomain Modelling 60% · 4% weightSecurity 74% · 2% weightArchitecture 78% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 43 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 47 → ~50.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 15%Plumbing 52%Tests 33%

New since the last scan (8+)

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

D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0
D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0
D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0
D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0
D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0
D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0
D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0
D30 · High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0

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 — €19,000–€97,000

Cost to rebuild	€19,000–€97,000 (0.2–0.6 person-years (322–1,022 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	High — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 47% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · 48% boilerplate · 29% straight-line · 22% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€58,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 43% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.6) — service/app, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, domain model × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

+3.3 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

+3.3 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most.

+3.9 pts · Medium effort · Domain vs controller coverage

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Medium asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 43%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.4 person-years rebuild (27,440 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 43%

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

Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain · Medium · Root cause

13 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.

Evidence: DM5 setters: 2 · DM4 anemic: 1 · DM2 primitive ids: 10

→ Address encapsulation as one pattern (private setters + behaviour + strongly-typed ids), not 100 separate findings.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most.

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 3.0

At a glance — Performance · 43% · Weak · gated by PF3

The Bad

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.0

The Ugly

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 2.0

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
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	10	High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, raise unit-test coverage for the domain layer to ensure correctness where it matters most. Next, enforce async hygiene by eliminating synchronous blocking calls in library code. Then, implement readiness probes and a rolling-update strategy to enable automatic rollback of bad releases. After that, restrict the library's public API by making types internal by default to protect consumers from breaking changes. Finally, extend structured logging across operational projects and provide a diagnostics seam for the library to avoid forcing logging dependencies on consumers.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+3.3 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+3.3 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most.	+3.9 pts	Medium	Domain vs controller coverage
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.	+3.9 pts	Medium	Async & latency hygiene
Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.	+3.8 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.	+3.7 pts	Medium	Library API & versioning
Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.	+3.7 pts	Medium	Observability
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).	+3.7 pts	Medium	Benchmark discipline

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 292 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 10% mixed · 90% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/Providers/AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.cs	5.9	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.ApplyMigrationsAsync (cognitive 26)
Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Entities/EFCoreCrudRepository.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/ModelMetadataExplorer.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6DatabaseAcccess.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationRegistry.cs	6.2	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Extensions/Tests/Revo.Extensions.History.Tests/ChangeTracking/EntityAttributeChangeLoggerTests.cs	6.2	Mixed	Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): ChangeAttribute_StoresEntityAttributeValues
Revo.Domain/Entities/EventSourcing/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/Repositories/EFCoreCrudAggregateStore.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/Repositories/EFCoreEventSourcedAggregateStore.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Query/CustomQueryProvider.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: BareSuppressMessage
Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/Repositories/EF6RepositoriesModule.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/DbContextFactory.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/Configuration/EF6InfrastructureConfigurationExtensions.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/EntityTypeDiscovery.cs	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)
Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Tenancy/TenantRepositoryFilterTests.cs	7.0	Mixed	Test Quality: No assertions: FilterAdded_AllowsOwnAndCommon
Examples/Todos/Revo.Examples.Todos/appsettings.json	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key
Revo.Infrastructure/Events/Async/AsyncEventExecutionCatchUp.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Events/Async/AsyncEventProcessorTests.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment

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. 66 of 70 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 70 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D39AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9C2DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6P8P9PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5

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, 361 of 427 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 · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fc789-6c2e-74fd-87b9-c65948aba065.

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

A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.

When something does degrade — a missing scanner, a shallow clone, an LLM hiccup — it is named here explicitly and its exact cause recorded in diagnostics.md, never absorbed silently into the score.

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.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (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.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
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.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
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 (6): D19, D20, D21, D24, ED5, 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 Complexity9.0 / 10Strong✓ 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 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync at 34.

DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync (cyclomatic 34)Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs:171

EntityEventToPocoProjector.ProjectEventsAsync (cyclomatic 16)Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventToPocoProjector.cs:46

What to do

Resolve the 1 DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync… finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 EntityEventToPocoProjector.ProjectEventsAsync (cyclomatic 16) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with EntityEventToPocoProjector.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.0 / 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 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync at 56.

DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync (cognitive 56)Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs:171

DatabaseMigrationRegistry.ValidateMigrations (cognitive 31)Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationRegistry.cs:37

AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.ApplyMigrationsAsync (cognitive 26)Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/Providers/AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.cs:70

EntityEventToPocoProjector.ProjectEventsAsync (cognitive 22)Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventToPocoProjector.cs:46

SagaConventionConfigurationScanner.AddEvents (cognitive 21)Revo.Domain/Sagas/SagaConventionConfigurationScanner.cs:23

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync… finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 DatabaseMigrationRegistry.ValidateMigrations (cognitive 31) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DatabaseMigrationRegistry.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.ApplyMigrationsAsync (cognitive 26) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.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 Classes9.1 / 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 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: EF6CrudRepository · ×5Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.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 Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

7 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×2Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:382

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventProjector.cs:137

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3)Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventProjector.cs:110

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:323

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/EntityTypeDiscovery.cs:59

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.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 125 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D8 · Code Coverage8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

Line coverage 43.9% — 260 file(s) below 50% · 32 method(s) over the CRAP-30 risk line.

Low coverage: EasyNetQBus.cs · ×260Providers/EasyNetQ/Revo.EasyNetQ/EasyNetQBus.cs

CRAP 90: PrivateCollectionMapping.MapPrivateCollections · ×2Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/PrivateCollectionMapping.cs:19

CRAP 72: PrefixConvention.PrefixColumnNames · ×2Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Conventions/PrefixConvention.cs:51

CRAP 56: EF6CrudRepository.FilterSavedEntities · ×2Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:447

CRAP 240: AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.ApplyMigrationsAsyncRevo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/Providers/AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.cs:70

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

What to do

Resolve the 260 Low coverage finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with SecurityInfrastructureModule.cs (2), AuthorizationQueryableExtensions.cs (2), EntityTypeDiscovery.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (260 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 CRAP 90 finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with PrivateCollectionMapping.cs, EFCoreCoordinatedTransaction.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 CRAP 72 finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with PrefixConvention.cs, PermissionTypeIndexer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test 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

573 test methods: 573 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 Quality9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 10 zero-assertion, 12 mock references across 573 tests.

No assertions (empty test): ChangeAttribute_StoresEntityAttributeValuesExtensions/Tests/Revo.Extensions.History.Tests/ChangeTracking/EntityAttributeChangeLoggerTests.cs:69

No assertions: ThrowsIfHeaderVersionDifferentFromFileName · ×9Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/DataAccess/Migrations/FileSqlDatabaseMigrationTests.cs:97

Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×12

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

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

0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene4.8 / 10Weak✓ 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 4.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

32 outdated, 1 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: AutoMapper

Deprecated: xunit

Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection · ×32

What to do

Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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 Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.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 48 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.7 / 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 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

41 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 26809 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.7.

TodoComment · ×39Extensions/Revo.Extensions.History/ChangeTracking/EntityAttributeChangeLogger.cs:53

BareSuppressMessageProviders/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Query/CustomQueryProvider.cs:6

ObsoleteWithoutCallersRevo.Core/Core/NinjectBindingExtensions.cs:34

✓ 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 Shape10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

28 projects, 936 source files, 40071 hand-written lines of code (26809 production / 13262 test), 127 inter-project edges.

Shell project: Revo.AspNetCore.TestsProviders/AspNetCore/Tests/Revo.AspNetCore.Tests/Revo.AspNetCore.Tests.csproj

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

Revo is a framework built on event sourcing, CQRS, and DDD with an Azure DevOps build badge, Codecov coverage, and links to GitBook docs. The main documentation is the Revo Framework README (1341 words) plus two example projects (Revo.Examples.Todos), but there are no architecture or design documents and only 2% XML-doc coverage across all namespaces.

XML-doc coverage: Revo.Core · ×17Revo.Core/Revo.Core.csproj

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — Revo is a framework built on event sourcing, CQRS, and DDD with an Azure DevOps build badge, Codecov coverage, and links to GitBook docs. The main documentation is the Revo Framework README (1341 words) plus two example projects (Revo.Examples.Todos), but there are no architecture or design documents and only 2% XML-doc coverage across all namespaces.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming Consistency / 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

3 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

The concept of a soft-delete flag is named 'IsDeleted' in the Saga test class, but 'IsDeleted' is also used for the IAggregateRoot interface. While this is consistent, the test class naming 'Saga1' is a generic placeholder name that differs from the specific domain concept 'Saga1' in the test, which is acceptable for tests but worth noting if it appears in production code.

The identifier for a Saga is referred to as 'Id' in the test class 'Saga1' but as 'Keys' in the 'ISaga' interface. This suggests a potential inconsistency between the concrete implementation/test and the interface definition.

The property 'IsDeleted' is used in both the test class and the interface, which is consistent. However, the test class 'Saga1' uses 'IsDeleted' while the interface 'IAggregateRoot' also uses 'IsDeleted'. This is consistent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment Value / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

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

18 valuable / 0 redundant across 185 sampled comments.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion8.7 / 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 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 28 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split Revo.Infrastructure

What to do

Resolve the 1 Split Revo.Infrastructure 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 · Navigability7.4 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

79 % of calls cross a namespace and 26 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

Improve Navigability — currently 7.4/10. — 79 % of calls cross a namespace and 26 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

Secret: generic-api-keyExamples/Todos/Revo.Examples.Todos/appsettings.json:9detected by gitleaks finding

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities3.8 / 10Weak✓ 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 3.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 10 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: AutoMapper 14.0.0 · ×10detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

Resolve the 10 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 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 Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.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?

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

2 of 2286 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 2 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetRevo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationRegistry.cs:39

✓ 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 composition4.9 / 10Weak✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

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 direction6.6 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

`Revo.Domain` is a Domain project but references `Revo.DataAccess`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.

What to do

Keep dependencies pointing inward: domain/application define interfaces, infrastructure/web implement them (Dependency Inversion).

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.

`IReadRepository` declares 34 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. — IReadRepository.cs:10

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?

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C2 · Access Controls7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

Authorization IS enforced here (by imperative guard methods that throw on violation) — this is NOT a claim that the code is unprotected. What's missing is a NAMED rule set: the guards encode the access rules inline, so the rules can't be listed, reviewed or tested apart from the call sites that apply them. Recommendation, not a defect.

What to do

Name the access rules — give each one a named predicate/policy object your guards consult, so the rule set can be reviewed and unit-tested independently of the call sites that enforce it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

`TodoList` references the aggregate root `Todo` directly (via `todos`) — hold its `TodoId` instead. — TodoList.cs:12
`TodoList` references the aggregate root `Todo` directly (via `Todos`) — hold its `TodoId` instead. — TodoList.cs:24

What to do

Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id, never by object reference, so each aggregate stays an independent consistency boundary.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — How much of the domain uses strongly-typed ids vs raw Guid/string/int — adoption curve, not all-or-nothing.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Coverage: Population: id-like members by *Id/*Key NAME suffix; strongly-typed-ID shape then checked semantically — non-suffixed identifiers are not seen.

`BasicClassAggregateRoot.ClassId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — BasicClassAggregateRoot.cs:20
`BasicClassEntity.ClassId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — BasicClassEntity.cs:25
`DomainAggregateEvent.AggregateId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — DomainAggregateEvent.cs:7
`TenantBasicAggregateRoot.TenantId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — TenantBasicAggregateRoot.cs:23
`TenantBasicClassAggregateRoot.TenantId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — TenantBasicClassAggregateRoot.cs:23
`TenantEventSourcedAggregateRoot.TenantId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — TenantEventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:24
`TenantAggregateRootCreated.TenantId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — TenantAggregateRootCreated.cs:13
`TodoAddedEvent.TodoId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — TodoAddedEvent.cs:13
`TodoIsCompleteUpdatedEvent.TodoId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — TodoIsCompleteUpdatedEvent.cs:14
`TodoTextUpdatedEvent.TodoId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — TodoTextUpdatedEvent.cs:14

What to do

Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

`ISaga` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — ISaga.cs:9

What to do

Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state (private/init-only setters) instead of exposing public setters that bypass invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): public setters on entities detected; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

`BasicAggregateRoot` exposes publicly writable state (Version). — BasicAggregateRoot.cs:11
`BasicEntity` exposes publicly writable state (Version). — BasicEntity.cs:9

What to do

Make entity setters private/init-only; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

`BasicDomainModelConvention` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — BasicDomainModelConvention.cs:11
`ReadModelConvention` (domain layer) references `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/web). — ReadModelConvention.cs:12

What to do

Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM7 · Repository granularity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether repositories are per aggregate root (not per child entity) so the root's invariants can't be bypassed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): repository abstraction detection; repositories over non-aggregate-root entities flagged. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: repositories + aggregate roots by NAME convention; per-root repository rule checked within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×25) — NullClaimsPrincipalUserResolver.cs:16, FakeRepository.cs:31, InMemoryCrudRepository.cs:24, …

What to do

Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs5.3 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

`ReloadAsync` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — InMemoryDbEntityEntry.cs:67
`ConfigureProperty` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — CustomStoreConvention.cs:73
`FromSqlInterpolated` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — EFCoreInMemoryCrudRepository.cs:12, EFCoreInMemoryDatabaseAccess.cs:21
`FromSqlRaw` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — EFCoreInMemoryCrudRepository.cs:17, EFCoreInMemoryDatabaseAccess.cs:26
`EFCoreInMemoryDatabaseAccess` has 4 unfinished members out of 6 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — EFCoreInMemoryDatabaseAccess.cs:9
`GetDbContext` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — EFCoreInMemoryDatabaseAccess.cs:31, EFCoreInMemoryDatabaseAccess.cs:36
`Get` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — RavenCrudRepository.cs:30, RavenCrudRepository.cs:35, InMemoryCrudRepository.cs:22
`GetAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — RavenCrudRepository.cs:40, RavenCrudRepository.cs:45
`FirstOrDefault` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:90
`First` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:95
`Find` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — RavenCrudRepository.cs:110, RavenCrudRepository.cs:115
`FindAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — RavenCrudRepository.cs:120, RavenCrudRepository.cs:125
`FindAllWithAdded` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:151
`WhereWithAdded` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:181
`GetEntities` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:186
`GetEntityState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:191
`SetEntityState` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:196
`IsAttached` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:201
`Attach` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:206
`AttachRange` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:211
`AddRange` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:221
`SaveChanges` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RavenCrudRepository.cs:303

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 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 28 of 28 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 accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

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.

842/864 types (97%) 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?

P2 · Observability6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Only 10/14 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 14, 2 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Filesystem 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 & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

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?

P9 · Domain vs controller coverage3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether test coverage concentrates on the domain (business rules) rather than the trivial web/controller layer — a focus check a generic tool can't make.

Method: Roslyn plus test-execution analysis: domain-layer versus trivial web/controller coverage ratio. Computed metric, deterministic.

Domain coverage is 27% — the layer carrying the business rules is under-tested.

What to do

Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most.

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 hygiene6.0 / 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.

No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this library sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it puts on its host — a bonus, not a requirement.

What to do

On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut allocations a consumer would otherwise inherit.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene2.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

10 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.
Only 0/399 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

Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
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?

S1 · Cryptographic Hygiene8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Cryptographic hygiene (weak hash/cipher, password key-derivation). This codebase has no web surface, so transport/header/cookie/CSRF controls are N/A and only crypto is scored.

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

MD5/SHA1 is constructed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ for content integrity, or a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, a file or mutex name), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as `System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32` says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. — SqlDatabaseMigration.cs:25

What to do

Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (`System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32`) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key or a mutex name.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×7) — BufferedNotificationStartup.cs:20, DatabaseInitializerLoader.cs:55, DatabaseMigrationExecutionHook.cs:28, …

What to do

Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation6.7 / 10Adequate✓ 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 68/149 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. (×25) — FilterCommandBusMiddleware.cs:43, FilterCommandBusMiddleware.cs:52, FilterCommandBusMiddleware.cs:61, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging3.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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.

Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. (×24) — CommandHandlerDiscovery.cs:49, CommandRouter.cs:31, CommandRouter.cs:67, …

What to do

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

0/17 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	50%	Adequate — gated by X4, X5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	78%	Strong	Strongest area.
Maturity	55%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	43%	Weak — gated by P3, P9	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	74%	Adequate — gated by D30	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	60%	Adequate — gated by DM2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	43%	Weak — gated by PF3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

Not included — 35 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.
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
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) — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.
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.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
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
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): a message-bus package; 12 CQRS handler(s)
ES1 Event Sourcing — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 4 aggregate(s) with Apply/When folds; an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events)
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.
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 — no outbound HTTP usage detected
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 — 13 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×10

High CVE: AutoMapper 14.0.0 — AutoMapper 14.0.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 5 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 9.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.11 — SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.11 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

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

No assertions (empty test): ChangeAttribute_StoresEntityAttributeValues Extensions/Tests/Revo.Extensions.History.Tests/ChangeTracking/EntityAttributeChangeLoggerTests.cs:69 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×1

Vulnerable: AutoMapper — AutoMapper 14.0.0 — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D28 · Secrets (history) · Secret · ×1

Secret: generic-api-key Examples/Todos/Revo.Examples.Todos/appsettings.json:9 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'

Warning — 340 finding(s)

D8 · Code Coverage · Low coverage · ×260

Low coverage: EasyNetQBus.cs Providers/EasyNetQ/Revo.EasyNetQ/EasyNetQBus.cs — 38.1% line coverage (16/42).
Low coverage: EasyNetQModule.cs Providers/EasyNetQ/Revo.EasyNetQ/EasyNetQModule.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/39).
Low coverage: NullEasyNetQBus.cs Providers/EasyNetQ/Revo.EasyNetQ/NullEasyNetQBus.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/18).
Low coverage: EasyNetQConfigurationExtensions.cs Providers/EasyNetQ/Revo.EasyNetQ/Configuration/EasyNetQConfigurationExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/13).
Low coverage: EasyNetQEventTransportsConfiguration.cs Providers/EasyNetQ/Revo.EasyNetQ/Configuration/EasyNetQEventTransportsConfiguration.cs — 7.1% line coverage (1/14).
Low coverage: CoordinatedTransaction.cs Revo.Core/Transactions/CoordinatedTransaction.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/46).
Low coverage: AuthorizationException.cs Revo.Core/Security/AuthorizationException.cs — 25.0% line coverage (3/12).
Low coverage: NullCoreSecurityModule.cs Revo.Core/Security/NullCoreSecurityModule.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/8).
Low coverage: PermissionTypeCatalogAttribute.cs Revo.Core/Security/PermissionTypeCatalogAttribute.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/5).
Low coverage: PermissionTypeIndexer.cs Revo.Core/Security/PermissionTypeIndexer.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/54).
Low coverage: PermissionTypeRegistry.cs Revo.Core/Security/PermissionTypeRegistry.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/25).
Low coverage: NullClaimsPrincipalUserResolver.cs Revo.Core/Security/ClaimBased/NullClaimsPrincipalUserResolver.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/5).
Low coverage: LifecycleModule.cs Revo.Core/Lifecycle/LifecycleModule.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/8).
Low coverage: PublishEventBufferFactory.cs Revo.Core/Events/PublishEventBufferFactory.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/7).
Low coverage: CoreModule.cs Revo.Core/Core/CoreModule.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/51).
Low coverage: Environment.cs Revo.Core/Core/Environment.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/9).
Low coverage: MemoryUtils.cs Revo.Core/Core/MemoryUtils.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/6).
Low coverage: NinjectBindingExtensions.cs Revo.Core/Core/NinjectBindingExtensions.cs — 47.1% line coverage (8/17).
Low coverage: NinjectServiceLocator.cs Revo.Core/Core/NinjectServiceLocator.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/16).
Low coverage: StringExtensions.cs Revo.Core/Core/StringExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/30).
Low coverage: ThreadSleep.cs Revo.Core/Core/ThreadSleep.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/6).
Low coverage: ConfigurationException.cs Revo.Core/Configuration/ConfigurationException.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/12).
Low coverage: CoreConfigurationExtensions.cs Revo.Core/Configuration/CoreConfigurationExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/15).
Low coverage: CommandBusMiddlewareFactory.cs Revo.Core/Commands/CommandBusMiddlewareFactory.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/8).
Low coverage: CommandGateway.cs Revo.Core/Commands/CommandGateway.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/20).
+ 235 more in this group — see findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×39

TodoComment Extensions/Revo.Extensions.History/ChangeTracking/EntityAttributeChangeLogger.cs:53 — /*public async Task ChangeAttributes(Dictionary<string, Tuple<ClrType, object>> newAttributeValues, Guid? aggregateId = null, Guid? aggregateClassId = null, Guid? entityId = null, Guid? entityClassId = null) { foreach (var attributeValue in newAttributeValues) { // TODO better solution without reflection var method = this.GetType().GetMethod("ChangeAttribute").MakeGenericMethod(attributeValue.Value.Item1); Task task = (Task)method.Invoke(this, new object[] { attributeValue.Key, attributeValue.Value.Item2, aggregateId, aggregateClassId, entityId, entityClassId }); await task; } }*/ — 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.
TodoComment Extensions/Tests/Revo.Extensions.History.Tests/ChangeTracking/EntityAttributeChangeLoggerTests.cs:33 — // TODO check IDs — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/Configuration/EF6InfrastructureConfigurationExtensions.cs:87 — // TODO ensure EF6 aggregate stores get injected the correct EF6 repository/event store (in case there are more registered) — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/DbContextFactory.cs:85 — // TODO convert this to an EF convention — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:454 — // TODO should cast — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:457 — // TODO should cast — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:460 — // TODO should cast — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Entities/EFCoreCrudRepository.cs:481 — // TODO should cast — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Entities/EFCoreCrudRepository.cs:484 — // TODO should cast — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Entities/EFCoreCrudRepository.cs:487 — // TODO should cast — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6DatabaseAcccess.cs:70 — //TODO: better solution — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6DatabaseAcccess.cs:86 — //TODO: better solution — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/ModelMetadataExplorer.cs:129 — /* TODO */ — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/ModelMetadataExplorer.cs:129 — //TODO: dispose or not? — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/Repositories/EF6RepositoriesModule.cs:20 — // TODO ensure the aggregate stores get injected the correct EF6 repository/event store (in case there are more registered) — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EF6/Tests/Revo.EF6.Tests/Projections/EF6EntityEventProjectorTests.cs:21 — // TODO? — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/Repositories/EFCoreCrudAggregateStore.cs:46 — // TODO do a rollback on commited aggregates? — 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.
TodoComment Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/Repositories/EFCoreEventSourcedAggregateStore.cs:47 — // TODO do a rollback on commited aggregates? — 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.
TodoComment Revo.Core/Commands/LocalCommandBus.cs:95 — // TODO test with contravariant handlers — 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.
TodoComment Revo.Core/Events/PublishEventBuffer.cs:21 — // TODO exception handling (i.e. throw away the remaining events as well?) — 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.
TodoComment Revo.Domain/Entities/EventSourcing/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:35 — // TODO throw if not at initial state (Version 0 and no uncommittted events?) — 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.
TodoComment Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationRegistry.cs:101 — // TODO check for cyclic dependencies — 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.
TodoComment Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs:204 — // TODO maybe return without errors if there are migrations for this module with different tags? — 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.
TodoComment Revo.Infrastructure/Events/Async/AsyncEventExecutionCatchUp.cs:58 — // TODO reschedule? — 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.
TodoComment Revo.Infrastructure/Events/Async/AsyncEventExecutionCatchUp.cs:84 — // TODO reschedule? — 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.
+ 14 more in this group — see findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×9

No assertions: ThrowsIfHeaderVersionDifferentFromFileName Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/DataAccess/Migrations/FileSqlDatabaseMigrationTests.cs:97 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: FilterAdded_AllowsOwnAndCommon Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Tenancy/TenantRepositoryFilterTests.cs:144 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: FilterAdded_AllowsUnfiltered Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Tenancy/TenantRepositoryFilterTests.cs:154 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: FilterAdded_NullContextAllowsNull Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Tenancy/TenantRepositoryFilterTests.cs:175 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: FilterAdded_NullContextAllowsAny Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Tenancy/TenantRepositoryFilterTests.cs:192 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: FilterModified_AllowsOwnAndCommon Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Tenancy/TenantRepositoryFilterTests.cs:204 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: FilterModified_AllowsUnfiltered Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Tenancy/TenantRepositoryFilterTests.cs:214 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: FilterModified_NullContextAllowsNull Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Tenancy/TenantRepositoryFilterTests.cs:235 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: FilterModified_NullContextAllowsAny Tests/Revo.Infrastructure.Tests/Tenancy/TenantRepositoryFilterTests.cs:242 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×5

TooManyMethods: EF6CrudRepository Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 283 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 71 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.
TooManyMethods: EFCoreCrudRepository Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Entities/EFCoreCrudRepository.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 314 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 69 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.
TooManyMethods: InMemoryCrudRepository Revo.DataAccess/InMemory/InMemoryCrudRepository.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 163 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 61 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.
TooManyMethods: RavenCrudRepository Providers/RavenDB/Revo.RavenDB/DataAccess/RavenCrudRepository.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 147 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 58 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.
TooManyMethods: EventStore Revo.Infrastructure/EventStores/Generic/EventStore.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 199 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 31 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:382 — Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:382-408 | Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Entities/EFCoreCrudRepository.cs:406-432 — 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 `Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:382` it does not close everything it opens, 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.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:419 — Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:419-445 | Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Entities/EFCoreCrudRepository.cs:446-472 — 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 `Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:419` 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.

D8 · Code Coverage · CRAP 90 · ×2

CRAP 90: PrivateCollectionMapping.MapPrivateCollections Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/PrivateCollectionMapping.cs:19 — Cyclomatic 9 with 0.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 90: EFCoreCoordinatedTransaction.DoCommitAsync Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/Repositories/EFCoreCoordinatedTransaction.cs:29 — Cyclomatic 9 with 0.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).

D8 · Code Coverage · CRAP 72 · ×2

CRAP 72: PrefixConvention.PrefixColumnNames Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Conventions/PrefixConvention.cs:51 — Cyclomatic 8 with 0.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 72: PermissionTypeIndexer.RegisterCatalog Revo.Core/Security/PermissionTypeIndexer.cs:55 — Cyclomatic 8 with 0.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).

D8 · Code Coverage · CRAP 56 · ×2

CRAP 56: EF6CrudRepository.FilterSavedEntities Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:447 — Cyclomatic 7 with 0.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 56: CustomStoreConvention.ConfigureTableType Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/CustomStoreConvention.cs:77 — Cyclomatic 7 with 0.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync (cyclomatic 34) · ×1

DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync (cyclomatic 34) Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs:171 — DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). Of this number, 32 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EntityEventToPocoProjector.ProjectEventsAsync (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

EntityEventToPocoProjector.ProjectEventsAsync (cyclomatic 16) Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventToPocoProjector.cs:46 — EntityEventToPocoProjector.ProjectEventsAsync has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×1

Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.9.3 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `xunit.v3`; migrate the reference to it.

D17 · Explicit Debt · BareSuppressMessage · ×1

BareSuppressMessage Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Query/CustomQueryProvider.cs:6 — System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync (cognitive 56) · ×1

DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync (cognitive 56) Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs:171 — DatabaseMigrationSelector.SelectModuleMigrationsNoDependenciesAsync has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Of this number, 54 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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 · DatabaseMigrationRegistry.ValidateMigrations (cognitive 31) · ×1

DatabaseMigrationRegistry.ValidateMigrations (cognitive 31) Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationRegistry.cs:37 — DatabaseMigrationRegistry.ValidateMigrations has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Of this number, 29 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 · AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.ApplyMigrationsAsync (cognitive 26) · ×1

AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.ApplyMigrationsAsync (cognitive 26) Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/Providers/AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.cs:70 — AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.ApplyMigrationsAsync has cognitive complexity 26 (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 · EntityEventToPocoProjector.ProjectEventsAsync (cognitive 22) · ×1

EntityEventToPocoProjector.ProjectEventsAsync (cognitive 22) Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventToPocoProjector.cs:46 — EntityEventToPocoProjector.ProjectEventsAsync has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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 · SagaConventionConfigurationScanner.AddEvents (cognitive 21) · ×1

SagaConventionConfigurationScanner.AddEvents (cognitive 21) Revo.Domain/Sagas/SagaConventionConfigurationScanner.cs:23 — SagaConventionConfigurationScanner.AddEvents has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. 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 · AsyncEventQueueManager.EnqueueExternalEventsAsync (cognitive 19) · ×1

AsyncEventQueueManager.EnqueueExternalEventsAsync (cognitive 19) Revo.Infrastructure/Events/Async/Generic/AsyncEventQueueManager.cs:195 — AsyncEventQueueManager.EnqueueExternalEventsAsync has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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 · FakeRepository.SaveChanges (cognitive 18) · ×1

FakeRepository.SaveChanges (cognitive 18) Revo.Testing/Infrastructure/Repositories/FakeRepository.cs:157 — FakeRepository.SaveChanges 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 · EventSourcedAggregateStore.DoFindManyAsync (cognitive 18) · ×1

EventSourcedAggregateStore.DoFindManyAsync (cognitive 18) Revo.Infrastructure/Repositories/EventSourcedAggregateStore.cs:264 — EventSourcedAggregateStore.DoFindManyAsync 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventProjector.cs:137 — Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventProjector.cs:137-151 | Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventToPocoProjector.cs:176-190 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventProjector.cs:137` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventProjector.cs:110 — Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventProjector.cs:110-120 | Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventProjector.cs:136-146 | Revo.Infrastructure/Projections/EntityEventToPocoProjector.cs:175-185 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:323 — Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:323-329 | Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Entities/EFCoreCrudRepository.cs:341-347 — 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 `Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:323` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/EntityTypeDiscovery.cs:59 — Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Model/EntityTypeDiscovery.cs:59-64 | Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Model/EntityTypeDiscovery.cs:57-62 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:217 — Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:217-221 | Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/DataAccess/Entities/EFCoreCrudRepository.cs:224-228 — 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 `Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/DataAccess/Entities/EF6CrudRepository.cs:217` it does not close everything it opens, 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.

D8 · Code Coverage · CRAP 240 · ×1

CRAP 240: AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.ApplyMigrationsAsync Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/Providers/AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.cs:70 — Cyclomatic 15 with 0.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).

D8 · Code Coverage · CRAP 210 · ×1

CRAP 210: AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.CreateSchemaAsync Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/Providers/AdoNetStubDatabaseMigrationProvider.cs:270 — Cyclomatic 14 with 0.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).

Recommendation — 12 finding(s)

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 2 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationSelector.cs, Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/DatabaseInitializerLoader.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×1

ObsoleteWithoutCallers Revo.Core/Core/NinjectBindingExtensions.cs:34 — [Obsolete] InRequestOrJobScope

D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×1

Shell project: Revo.AspNetCore.Tests Providers/AspNetCore/Tests/Revo.AspNetCore.Tests/Revo.AspNetCore.Tests.csproj — `Revo.AspNetCore.Tests` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.

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. `Revo.Examples.Todos.Tests` with 46 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 100 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.03 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

D21 · Naming Consistency · The concept of a soft-delete flag is named 'IsDeleted' in the Saga test class, but 'IsDeleted' is also used for the IAggregateRoot interface. While this is consistent, the test class naming 'Saga1' is a generic placeholder name that differs from the specific domain concept 'Saga1' in the test, which is acceptable for tests but worth noting if it appears in production code. · ×1

The concept of a soft-delete flag is named 'IsDeleted' in the Saga test class, but 'IsDeleted' is also used for the IAggregateRoot interface. While this is consistent, the test class naming 'Saga1' is a generic placeholder name that differs from the specific domain concept 'Saga1' in the test, which is acceptable for tests but worth noting if it appears in production code. — Ensure 'IsDeleted' is the standard term for soft-delete across all entity types. (symbols: Revo.Infrastructure.Tests.Sagas.KeySagaLocatorTests.Saga1.IsDeleted, Revo.Domain.Entities.IAggregateRoot.IsDeleted)

D21 · Naming Consistency · The identifier for a Saga is referred to as 'Id' in the test class 'Saga1' but as 'Keys' in the 'ISaga' interface. This suggests a potential inconsistency between the concrete implementation/test and the interface definition. · ×1

The identifier for a Saga is referred to as 'Id' in the test class 'Saga1' but as 'Keys' in the 'ISaga' interface. This suggests a potential inconsistency between the concrete implementation/test and the interface definition. — Standardize on 'Id' or 'Keys' for the primary identifier of a Saga. (symbols: Revo.Infrastructure.Tests.Sagas.KeySagaLocatorTests.Saga1.Id, Revo.Domain.Sagas.ISaga.Keys)

D21 · Naming Consistency · The property 'IsDeleted' is used in both the test class and the interface, which is consistent. However, the test class 'Saga1' uses 'IsDeleted' while the interface 'IAggregateRoot' also uses 'IsDeleted'. This is consistent. · ×1

The property 'IsDeleted' is used in both the test class and the interface, which is consistent. However, the test class 'Saga1' uses 'IsDeleted' while the interface 'IAggregateRoot' also uses 'IsDeleted'. This is consistent. — No action needed. (symbols: Revo.Infrastructure.Tests.Sagas.KeySagaLocatorTests.Saga1.IsDeleted, Revo.Domain.Entities.IAggregateRoot.IsDeleted)

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

Bounded contexts not declared — At 26809 LoC spread over 28 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 Revo.Infrastructure · ×1

Split Revo.Infrastructure — Generic 'Infrastructure' catch-all at 9k LoC across 25 unrelated namespaces is a sprawling grab-bag. Suggested: by namespace: Revo.Caching, Revo.Messaging, Revo.Persistence

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

Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — Some of these secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each historically-exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks. (Working-tree-only secrets — no commit — can instead be removed from the file and moved to a secret store.) Every location above sits inside a test/fixture/sample tree, so there may be no live credential to revoke — in that case the performable actions are different ones: confirm each value was never reused outside the tests (a fixture key shared with a staging or demo environment IS a live credential and must be rotated), generate this material at test time instead of committing it so the next one cannot be mistaken for a real leak, and record the deliberate exposure where a reader of the file will see it. Rotate anything that fails the first check.

D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1

IL efficiency: 2 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationRegistry.cs:39 — 2 of 2286 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Revo.Infrastructure.DataAccess.Migrations.DatabaseMigrationRegistry.ValidateMigrations @ Revo.Infrastructure/DataAccess/Migrations/DatabaseMigrationRegistry.cs:39, 292 IL instructions; large bodies don't JIT-inline, which pulled this dimension to 10.0/10; splitting the hottest bodies recovers the most.

Info — 62 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×32

Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.Core).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.Core).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.Core).
Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub — Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub 8.0.0 → 10.0.301 available (referenced by Revo.Core).
Outdated: System.Collections.Immutable — System.Collections.Immutable 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.Core).
Outdated: FluentAssertions — FluentAssertions 8.8.0 → 8.10.0 available (referenced by Revo.Testing).
Outdated: NSubstitute — NSubstitute 5.3.0 → 6.0.0 available (referenced by Revo.Testing).
Outdated: coverlet.collector — coverlet.collector 6.0.4 → 10.0.1 available (referenced by Revo.Core.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 18.0.1 → 18.8.1 available (referenced by Revo.Core.Tests).
Outdated: AutoMapper — AutoMapper 14.0.0 → 16.2.0 available (referenced by Revo.Extensions.History).
Outdated: AutoMapper.Extensions.ExpressionMapping — AutoMapper.Extensions.ExpressionMapping 8.0.0 → 11.0.0 available (referenced by Revo.Extensions.History).
Outdated: LinqKit.Core — LinqKit.Core 1.2.9 → 1.2.11 available (referenced by Revo.Infrastructure).
Outdated: EntityFramework — EntityFramework 6.5.1 → 6.5.2 available (referenced by Revo.EF6).
Outdated: Hangfire — Hangfire 1.8.22 → 1.8.24 available (referenced by Revo.Hangfire).
Outdated: RavenDB.Client — RavenDB.Client 7.1.4 → 7.2.5 available (referenced by Revo.RavenDB).
Outdated: RabbitMQ.Client — RabbitMQ.Client 7.2.0 → 7.2.1 available (referenced by Revo.Rebus).
Outdated: Rebus — Rebus 8.9.0 → 8.9.2 available (referenced by Revo.Rebus).
Outdated: Rebus.RabbitMq — Rebus.RabbitMq 10.1.0 → 10.1.1 available (referenced by Revo.Rebus).
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.EFCore).
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.EFCore).
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.EFCore).
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Proxies — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Proxies 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.EFCore).
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.EFCore).
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools 10.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Revo.EFCore).
Outdated: Hangfire.PostgreSql — Hangfire.PostgreSql 1.20.12 → 1.21.1 available (referenced by Revo.Examples.Todos).
+ 7 more in this group — see findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×17

XML-doc coverage: Revo.Core Revo.Core/Revo.Core.csproj — Revo.Core: 14 % XML-doc coverage (77/536).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Domain Revo.Domain/Revo.Domain.csproj — Revo.Domain: 9 % XML-doc coverage (19/208).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Testing Revo.Testing/Revo.Testing.csproj — Revo.Testing: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/90).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Extensions.Notifications Extensions/Revo.Extensions.Notifications/Revo.Extensions.Notifications.csproj — Revo.Extensions.Notifications: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/109).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Extensions.History Extensions/Revo.Extensions.History/Revo.Extensions.History.csproj — Revo.Extensions.History: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/82).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.DataAccess Revo.DataAccess/Revo.DataAccess.csproj — Revo.DataAccess: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/117).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Infrastructure Revo.Infrastructure/Revo.Infrastructure.csproj — Revo.Infrastructure: 2 % XML-doc coverage (20/901).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.EF6 Providers/EF6/Revo.EF6/Revo.EF6.csproj — Revo.EF6: 1 % XML-doc coverage (3/330).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Hangfire Providers/Hangfire/Revo.Hangfire/Revo.Hangfire.csproj — Revo.Hangfire: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/22).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.RavenDB Providers/RavenDB/Revo.RavenDB/Revo.RavenDB.csproj — Revo.RavenDB: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/93).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Rebus Providers/Rebus/Revo.Rebus/Revo.Rebus.csproj — Revo.Rebus: 3 % XML-doc coverage (1/34).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.EFCore Providers/EFCore/Revo.EFCore/Revo.EFCore.csproj — Revo.EFCore: 3 % XML-doc coverage (9/338).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.AspNetCore Providers/AspNetCore/Revo.AspNetCore/Revo.AspNetCore.csproj — Revo.AspNetCore: 1 % XML-doc coverage (1/76).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Examples.Todos Examples/Todos/Revo.Examples.Todos/Revo.Examples.Todos.csproj — Revo.Examples.Todos: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/105).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.EasyNetQ Providers/EasyNetQ/Revo.EasyNetQ/Revo.EasyNetQ.csproj — Revo.EasyNetQ: 4 % XML-doc coverage (2/56).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Tools.DatabaseMigrator Tools/Revo.Tools.DatabaseMigrator/Revo.Tools.DatabaseMigrator.csproj — Revo.Tools.DatabaseMigrator: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/28).
XML-doc coverage: Revo.Extensions.AutoMapper Extensions/Revo.Extensions.AutoMapper/Revo.Extensions.AutoMapper.csproj — Revo.Extensions.AutoMapper: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/18).

D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×12

Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.Testing references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.Core.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.Domain.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.DataAccess.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.Infrastructure.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.EF6.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.Extensions.History.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.Extensions.Notifications.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.AspNetCore.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.EFCore.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.Examples.Todos.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Revo.EasyNetQ.Tests references NSubstitute.

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 .	1	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 .	0	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list Revo.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	10	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 — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.	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	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).	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 019fc789-6c2e-74fd-87b9-c65948aba065 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Revoframework/Revo

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 50% · Adequate · gated by X4, X5

At a glance — Architecture · 78% · Strong

At a glance — Maturity · 55% · Adequate · gated by M2

At a glance — Readiness · 43% · Weak · gated by P3, P9

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D30

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 60% · Adequate · gated by DM2

At a glance — Performance · 43% · Weak · gated by PF3

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