ddd-by-example — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.

richardchanjr90-cpu/ddd-by-example is in good health (60%). It can be evolved and depended on with normal engineering discipline; the items below are improvements, not blockers.

It is strongest in Security (86%) — its security and compliance posture is in good shape. Architecture (84%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Domain Modelling (50%) — the domain model leaks and drifts, so business rules are harder to trust and change. Code Health (59%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id (Aggregate boundaries); strongly-typed ids across the domain (Strongly-typed ids); Define repositories per aggregate root (Repository granularity).

For scale: Small (~18,761 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.2 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Security foundation (86%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 59% Adequate · gated by X5 Architecture 84% ★ Exemplary Maturity 77% ★ Exemplary Readiness 75% ★ Exemplary Security 86% ★ Exemplary Domain Modelling 50% Adequate · gated by DM1, DM2, DM7

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.

Domain Modelling 50% · 46% weightCode Health 59% · 25% weightReadiness 75% · 14% weightMaturity 77% · 8% weightArchitecture 84% · 4% weightSecurity 86% · 2% weight

Raise Domain Modelling 50 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 60 → ~67.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 9%Plumbing 68%Tests 10%Generated 13%

New since the last scan (3+)

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

D22 · Redundant/Overlapping Types: CommandNotificationResult appears to be a wrapper around CommandResult (it has a CommandResult property) but also duplicates the Success, Message, and Result properties directly. This creates confusion about whether consumers should use CommandResult or CommandNotificationResult, and why both exist.
D22 · Inconsistent Naming and Structure: ICommandNotificationResult is an interface that duplicates the structure of CommandResult but with different naming conventions (e.g., OnSuccessNotifications, OnFailNotifications). This suggests a lack of clear distinction between the result of a command and the notification of its outcome.
ED5 · Non-idempotent mutation: Purchases.CreatePurchaseCommandHandler.Handle src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Purchases/CreatePurchaseCommandHandler.cs

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 — €9,400–€47,000

Cost to rebuild	€9,400–€47,000 (0.1–0.3 person-years (157–490 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	High — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.8× (at 60% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · 56% boilerplate · 32% straight-line · 12% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€28,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Domain Modelling at 50% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.7) — library/CLI, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, domain model, event-driven integration × a 0.8× 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.

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

+9.6 pts · Medium effort · Aggregate boundaries

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

+9.6 pts · Medium effort · Strongly-typed ids

Define repositories per aggregate root; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed.

+9.6 pts · Medium effort · Repository granularity

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Small asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Domain Modelling at 50%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.2 person-years rebuild (18,761 LoC) · weakest lens: Domain Modelling 50%

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

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

35 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: 5 · DM4 anemic: 2 · DM2 primitive ids: 28

→ 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: Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id, never by object reference, so each aggregate stays an independent consistency boundary. The rest can wait behind it.

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

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

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

191 modules, 263 dependencies — 2 dependency cycles, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

At a glance — Code Health · 59% · Adequate · gated by X5

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.8 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.9 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 9.5 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 6.3 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 6.6 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0

The Bad

X4 · Repo Structured logging 5.8

The Ugly

X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 84% · Exemplary

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 8.2 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 8.2 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Bad

AX10 · Repo Code composition 4.6

The Ugly

D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 3.0

At a glance — Maturity · 77% · Exemplary

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0

The Ugly

D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 3.0

At a glance — Readiness · 75% · Exemplary

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 8.4 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 9.8 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0

The Bad

P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

At a glance — Security · 86% · Exemplary

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 C3 · Repo Audit Trail 7.5

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 50% · Adequate · gated by DM1, DM2, DM7

The Good

DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 8.6 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 8.3 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0

The Bad

DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 3.9

The Ugly

DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 3.0 DM7 · Repo Repository granularity 3.5

Roadmap

First, ensure each aggregate maintains its own consistency boundary by referencing other aggregates solely through strongly-typed identifiers. Next, complete the migration to strongly-typed IDs across the domain to eliminate transposed-argument risks. Then, define repositories per aggregate root to prevent bypassing invariants, and make entity setters private or init-only to enforce state changes through controlled methods. Finally, move business rules onto the aggregates and entities they govern to ensure invariants are enforced at the source rather than in anemic services.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id, never by object reference, so each aggregate stays an independent consistency boundary.	+9.6 pts	Medium	Aggregate boundaries
Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.	+9.6 pts	Medium	Strongly-typed ids
Define repositories per aggregate root; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed.	+9.6 pts	Medium	Repository granularity
Make entity setters private/init-only; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).	+6.2 pts	Medium	Encapsulated state
Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.	+5.5 pts	Medium	Rich vs anemic model
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging	+5.3 pts	Medium	Structured logging
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.	+5.3 pts	Medium	Nullable reference types
Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.	+5.2 pts	Medium	Incompleteness & stubs

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 20 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 0% mixed · 100% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs	6.5	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: WorkerAppService.cs ↔ GetVerificationLinkQueryHandler.cs
test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/Tests/Venue/VenueTests.cs	7.0	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): ShouldGetOnlyOwnVenues
src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/Scoped/ObjectStore.cs	7.7	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs	7.8	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)
test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/Tests/Venue/WorkerTests.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): ShouldArchiveWorker
src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/ProductGroup/ProductGroupArchivedDomainEventHandler.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/ProductGroup/ProductGroupChangedDomainEventHandler.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyProductGroupAppService.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Extensions/ClaimsPrincipalExtensions.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Commands/User/SetupFirebaseTokenCommand.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/LoyaltyTenantDbContext.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)
src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 3)
src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Admin/VenueApprovePatchFunction.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)
src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)
src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: LoyaltyVenueAppService (LCOM4 10)
src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueImageAppService.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: LoyaltyVenueImageAppService (LCOM4 5)
src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/Worker.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: Worker (LCOM4 4)
src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications.csproj	9.5	Near-clean	Solution Shape: Shell project: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications
src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs	9.5	Near-clean	Comment Value: redundant comment

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. 51 of 54 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — 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 — 54 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D21D22D24D26D28D29D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9C3DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P10P6P8X1X2X3X4X5

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, 24 of 41 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 019fc7ae-0410-76a8-99bb-485aaf894c44.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
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.
C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
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.
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 (5): D21, D22, 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 Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.8 / 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

6 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Admin/VenueApprovePatchFunction.cs:41

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs:17

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3)src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs:16

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:56

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:33

✓ 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 · Coupling8.2 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

26 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 3 unstable depended-on project(s).

Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Common.Shared · ×3

Unstable project LoyaltyProgram

Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC

Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands

What to do

Resolve the 3 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Unstable project LoyaltyProgram finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)8.2 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

4 of 27 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: LoyaltyVenueAppService (LCOM4 10) · ×4src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs:20

What to do

Resolve the 4 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs, WorkerAppService.cs, LoyaltyVenueImageAppService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_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

57 test methods: 57 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Tests co-located / outside the solution

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 3 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 57 tests.

No assertions (empty test): ShouldArchiveWorker · ×3test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/Tests/Venue/WorkerTests.cs:78

What to do

Resolve the 3 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with VenueTests.cs (2), WorkerTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.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 46 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

7 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 17617 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 9.9.

TodoComment · ×6src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/ProductGroup/ProductGroupArchivedDomainEventHandler.cs:32

CommentedOutCodesrc/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/Scoped/ObjectStore.cs:33

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

26 projects, 572 source files, 17617 hand-written lines of code (17617 production / 0 test), plus 3182 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 65 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).

Monorepo: only 1 of 2 solutions was scored

Shell project: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notificationssrc/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications.csproj

Thin analysable surface across projects

Build status unknown

✓ 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?

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

2 API inconsistencies across 7 exposed types.

Redundant/Overlapping Types: CommandNotificationResult appears to be a wrapper around CommandResult (it has a CommandResult property) but also duplicates the Success, Message, and Result properties directly. This creates confusion about whether consumers should use CommandResult or CommandNotificationResult, and why both exist.

Inconsistent Naming and Structure: ICommandNotificationResult is an interface that duplicates the structure of CommandResult but with different naming conventions (e.g., OnSuccessNotifications, OnFailNotifications). This suggests a lack of clear distinction between the result of a command and the notification of its outcome.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Redundant/Overlapping Types finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent Naming and Structure finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment Value / 10Weak◐ 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 Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 valuable / 2 redundant across 58 sampled comments; 2 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×2src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs:15

What to do

Resolve the 2 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Product.cs, ObjectStore.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 24 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)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?

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

Strongest change-coupling: WorkerAppService.cs↔GetVerificationLinkQueryHandler.cs 50%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: WorkerAppService.cs ↔ GetVerificationLinkQueryHandler.cssrc/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_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 composition4.6 / 10Adequate✓ 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 direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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?

C3 · Audit Trail7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether changes to sensitive data are recorded (who, what, when) for compliance + incident response.

Method: Roslyn scan: audit-trail mechanism graded (SaveChanges interceptor/immutable AuditLog/[Audited] strong; bare IAuditable/AddAuditing weak). Deterministic.

An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: an immutable audit-log / audit-trail type to write to, [Audited] per-entity coverage.

What to do

Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent) writing every sensitive change to an immutable audit log, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries3.9 / 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.

`ProductGroup` references the aggregate root `Venue` directly (via `OwnerVenue`) — hold its `VenueId` instead. — ProductGroup.cs:31
`Venue` references the aggregate root `LoyaltyProgram` directly (via `LoyaltyPrograms`) — hold its `LoyaltyProgramId` instead. — Venue.cs:80
`Venue` references the aggregate root `ProductGroup` directly (via `ProductGroups`) — hold its `ProductGroupId` instead. — Venue.cs:82

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.

`LoyaltyProductGroup.LoyaltyProgramId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — LoyaltyProductGroup.cs:49
`LoyaltyProductGroup.ProductGroupId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — LoyaltyProductGroup.cs:60
`LoyaltyProductGroup.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — LoyaltyProductGroup.cs:68
`LoyaltyProgram.VenueId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — LoyaltyProgram.cs:58
`LoyaltyProgram.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — LoyaltyProgram.cs:67
`Order.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Order.cs:28
`Order.VenueId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Order.cs:32
`OrderItem.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — OrderItem.cs:31
`OrderItem.ProductId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — OrderItem.cs:35
`OrderItem.OrderId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — OrderItem.cs:42
`ProductGroup.VenueId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — ProductGroup.cs:28
`ProductGroup.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — ProductGroup.cs:42
`Product.ProductGroupId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Product.cs:78
`Product.VenueId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Product.cs:80
`Product.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Product.cs:82
`Purchase.LoyaltyProductGroupId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Purchase.cs:79
`Purchase.VenueId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Purchase.cs:82
`Purchase.ProductId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Purchase.cs:85
`Purchase.UserId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Purchase.cs:87
`Purchase.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Purchase.cs:91
`Venue.OwnerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Venue.cs:51
`Venue.ParentId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Venue.cs:54
`Venue.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Venue.cs:78
`VenueWorker.VenueId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — VenueWorker.cs:21
`VenueWorker.WorkerId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — VenueWorker.cs:23
`VenueWorker.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — VenueWorker.cs:29
`Worker.WorkerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — Worker.cs:63
`TenantEntity.TenantId` is a raw `Int64` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int64`, in whatever form your language spells that. — TenantEntity.cs:8

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 model8.6 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

`OrderItem` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — OrderItem.cs:9
`Purchase` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Purchase.cs:10

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 state8.3 / 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.

`Order` exposes publicly writable state (Id). — Order.cs:17
`OrderItem` exposes publicly writable state (Id). — OrderItem.cs:9
`ProductGroup` exposes publicly writable state (OwnerVenue). — ProductGroup.cs:11
`Venue` exposes publicly writable state (Images, LoyaltyPrograms, ProductGroups). — Venue.cs:18
`AuditableEntity` exposes publicly writable state (CreatedBy, ModifiedBy, Modified, Created). — AuditableEntity.cs:8

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 boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM7 · Repository granularity3.5 / 10Weak✓ 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.

`LoyaltyProgramRepository` is a repository over `LoyaltyProgram`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `LoyaltyProgram` through its owning aggregate instead. — LoyaltyProgramRepository.cs:14
`OrderRepository` is a repository over `Order`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Order` through its owning aggregate instead. — OrderRepository.cs:13
`ProductGroupRepository` is a repository over `ProductGroup`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `ProductGroup` through its owning aggregate instead. — ProductGroupRepository.cs:15
`ProductRepository` is a repository over `Product`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Product` through its owning aggregate instead. — ProductRepository.cs:14
`PurchaseRepository` is a repository over `Purchase`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Purchase` through its owning aggregate instead. — PurchaseRepository.cs:14
`VenueAdminRepository` is a repository over `Venue`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Venue` through its owning aggregate instead. — VenueAdminRepository.cs:13
`VenueRepository` is a repository over `Venue`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Venue` through its owning aggregate instead. — VenueRepository.cs:15
`WorkerRepository` is a repository over `Worker`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Worker` through its owning aggregate instead. — WorkerRepository.cs:13

What to do

Define repositories per aggregate root; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed.

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 · Idempotency9.8 / 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.

`Purchases.CreatePurchaseCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — CreatePurchaseCommandHandler.cs:32

What to do

Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 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. (×4) — EmptyMediator.cs:12, EmptyMediator.cs:17, EmptyMediator.cs:22, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs6.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`EmptyMediator` has 4 unfinished members out of 4 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — EmptyMediator.cs:8
`Send` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — EmptyMediator.cs:10, EmptyMediator.cs:15
`Publish` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — EmptyMediator.cs:20, EmptyMediator.cs:25
`Handle` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — GetClientActivePurchasesQueryHandler.cs:25
`Run` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — LoaderIoFunction.cs:13
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×3) — ObjectStore.cs:37, VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:58, Startup.cs:67

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)7.3 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 a README to the 24 of 24 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

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).

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

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?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

580/587 types (99%) 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?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation6.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 114/262 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) — AdminGetAllVenuesFunction.cs:22, ClientInfoFunction.cs:25, PurchaseGetActiveByCodeFunction.cs:21, …

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 logging5.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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. (×8) — VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:99, VenuePutImageFunction.cs:84, VenueCreateLogoFunction.cs:90, …

What to do

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

0/23 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	59%	Adequate — gated by X5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	84%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	77%	Exemplary	Solid.
Readiness	75%	Exemplary	Solid.
Security	86%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Domain Modelling	50%	Adequate — gated by DM1, DM2, DM7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

Not included — 54 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 — This is a dotnet-new template — at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
C2 Access Controls — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
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 — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
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.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
ED1 Handler temporal coupling — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
ED2 Event/command shape — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
ED3 Event naming — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
ED4 Outbox / dual-write — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
P1 CI/CD gates — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Automated CI/CD gates are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
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 — 4 finding(s)

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×3

No assertions (empty test): ShouldArchiveWorker test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/Tests/Venue/WorkerTests.cs:78 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): ShouldGetOnlyOwnVenues test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/Tests/Venue/VenueTests.cs:224 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): ShouldGetOnlyNotArchiveVenues test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/Tests/Venue/VenueTests.cs:229 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1

Boundary-crossing change coupling: WorkerAppService.cs ↔ GetVerificationLinkQueryHandler.cs src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs — `src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs` (context Loyalty.Application.Venue) and `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Queries/GetVerificationLinkQueryHandler.cs` (context Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (7 of the 14 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.

Warning — 29 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×6

TodoComment src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/ProductGroup/ProductGroupArchivedDomainEventHandler.cs:32 — //todo: comment when scoped fixed — 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 src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/ProductGroup/ProductGroupChangedDomainEventHandler.cs:40 — //todo: comment when scoped fixed — 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 src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyProductGroupAppService.cs:131 — //todo: this should be tested — 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 src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Extensions/ClaimsPrincipalExtensions.cs:68 — //todo: put in a common lib as a const. — 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 src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Commands/User/SetupFirebaseTokenCommand.cs:13 — // todo: remove it when
TodoComment src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/LoyaltyTenantDbContext.cs:67 — //todo: when named query filter appear: separate archive and tenant filters; — 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×4

Low cohesion: LoyaltyVenueAppService (LCOM4 10) src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs:20 — LoyaltyVenueAppService's methods form 10 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: WorkerAppService (LCOM4 7) src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs:28 — WorkerAppService's methods form 7 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: LoyaltyVenueImageAppService (LCOM4 5) src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueImageAppService.cs:22 — LoyaltyVenueImageAppService's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: Worker (LCOM4 4) src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/Worker.cs:12 — Worker's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×3

Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Common.Shared — Loyalty.Common.Shared: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — the shape a shared-kernel / building-block library has BY DESIGN — concrete and widely depended-on is what makes it useful, and this dimension does not penalise it (the distance is reported for completeness, not as a defect). Worth a look only if it has grown past one coherent kernel into an everything-bucket.
Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries — Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.14, distance 0.86 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 6 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries — Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.20, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Admin/VenueApprovePatchFunction.cs:41 — src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Admin/VenueApprovePatchFunction.cs:41-51 | src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Admin/VenueRejectPatchFunction.cs:41-51 — 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 `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Admin/VenueApprovePatchFunction.cs:41` 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 (11 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:12 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:12-22 | src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/UpdateVenueValidator.cs:14-24 — 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.

D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1

single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (1 author(s) across 594 commit(s) sampled).

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×1

CommentedOutCode src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/Scoped/ObjectStore.cs:33 — 8 consecutive commented-code lines

D18 · Solution Shape · Monorepo · ×1

Monorepo: only 1 of 2 solutions was scored — This repository contains 2 .NET solutions, but a scan analyzes ONE. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `src/LoyaltyProgram.sln` — the other 1 (`common/Loyalty.Venue.Common.sln`) were not analyzed and are not represented in the headline. To cover them, scan each solution as its own target and group them in a Solution or Product for a portfolio roll-up. If a secondary solution is an archived or vendored tree, declare it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — to exclude it from discovery the same way generated code is.

D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.findings[1] | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1207.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant/Overlapping Types · ×1

Redundant/Overlapping Types: CommandNotificationResult appears to be a wrapper around CommandResult (it has a CommandResult property) but also duplicates the Success, Message, and Result properties directly. This creates confusion about whether consumers should use CommandResult or CommandNotificationResult, and why both exist. — Remove the redundant properties (Success, Message, Result) from CommandNotificationResult and rely on the CommandResult property, or merge the two types if they serve the same purpose. (signatures: Loyalty.Domain.Contracts.CommandResult | Loyalty.Domain.Contracts.CommandNotificationResult)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent Naming and Structure · ×1

Inconsistent Naming and Structure: ICommandNotificationResult is an interface that duplicates the structure of CommandResult but with different naming conventions (e.g., OnSuccessNotifications, OnFailNotifications). This suggests a lack of clear distinction between the result of a command and the notification of its outcome. — Align the interface and class structures. If ICommandNotificationResult is meant to handle notifications, it should not duplicate the success/message/result pattern of CommandResult. Consider using a single type or clearly separating 'result' from 'notification' concerns. (signatures: Loyalty.Domain.Contracts.CommandResult | Loyalty.Domain.Contracts.Interfaces.ICommandNotificationResult)

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs:17 — src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs:17-35 | src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueNewImageValidator.cs:17-35 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs:16 — src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs:16-28 | src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs:16-34 | src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueNewImageValidator.cs:16-34 — 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 `src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs:16` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:56 — src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:56-64 | src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueLogo/VenueCreateLogoFunction.cs:56-64 — 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 `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:56` 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.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:33 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:33-40 | src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/UpdateVenueValidator.cs:32-39 — 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 `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:33` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D5 · Coupling · Unstable project LoyaltyProgram · ×1

Unstable project LoyaltyProgram — LoyaltyProgram has instability 1.00 with 0 dependents.

D5 · Coupling · Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC · ×1

Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC — Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC has instability 0.92 with 1 dependents.

D5 · Coupling · Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands · ×1

Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands has instability 0.86 with 1 dependents.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

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

Recommendation — 6 finding(s)

D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×2

redundant comment src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs:15 — "public constructor available to developer to create a new book" — trim - 'available to developer' restates the ctor's accessibility
redundant comment src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/Scoped/ObjectStore.cs:37 — "var context = ObjectDictionary[hashCode];" — delete - the lookup is self-evident

D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1

Test reliability not included — No test suite was found, so reliability couldn't be assessed.

D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×1

Shell project: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications.csproj — `Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications` 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. `Loyalty.Core.Contracts` with 25 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 94 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.5 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.

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

Bounded contexts not declared — At 17617 LoC spread over 26 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"]`.

Info — 2 finding(s)

D18 · Solution Shape · Build status unknown · ×1

Build status unknown — The build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.

D9 · Test Distribution · Tests co-located / outside the solution · ×1

Tests co-located / outside the solution — 57 test method(s) were found on disk (co-located in feature projects, or outside the analyzed solution) rather than in dedicated test projects, so the unit/integration/E2E pyramid can't be classified — they're counted as one undifferentiated suite.

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	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	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 .	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.	—
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.	—
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.	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.	—
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.	—
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.	—
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.	—
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.	—
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.	—

Run 019fc7ae-0410-76a8-99bb-485aaf894c44 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 56 field(s) across 3 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Email — 21 field(s)

EmailInvitationDto.CustomerEmail src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/EmailInvitationDto.cs:9
EmailInvitationDto.SenderEmail src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/EmailInvitationDto.cs:11
PatchEmailViewModel.Email src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Signup/PatchEmailViewModel.cs:8
WorkerViewModel.Email src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Worker/WorkerViewModel.cs:28
ErrorCode.EMAIL_EXISTS src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Constants/ErrorCode.cs:41
EmailSettings.InviteEmail src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Settings/EmailSettings.cs:7
EmailSettings.EmailLink src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Settings/EmailSettings.cs:13
Worker.Email src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/Worker.cs:73
UpdateUserEmailCommand.CurrentEmail src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Commands/User/UpdateUserEmailCommand.cs:8
UpdateUserEmailCommand.IsEmailVerified src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Commands/User/UpdateUserEmailCommand.cs:12
UpdateUserEmailCommand.NewEmail src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Commands/User/UpdateUserEmailCommand.cs:14
GetVerificationLinkQuery.NewEmail src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Queries/GetVerificationLinkQuery.cs:14
GetVerificationLinkQuery.IsEmailVerified src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Queries/GetVerificationLinkQuery.cs:16
GetCurrentUserQueryResult.Email src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/QueryResults/GetCurrentUserQueryResult.cs:5
GetCurrentUserQueryResult.IsEmailVerified src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/QueryResults/GetCurrentUserQueryResult.cs:9
GetVerificationLinkQueryResult.Email src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/QueryResults/GetVerificationLinkQueryResult.cs:5
UpdateEmailCommand.Email src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/UserProfile/UpdateEmailCommand.cs:10
UpdateEmailCommand.IsEmailVerified src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/UserProfile/UpdateEmailCommand.cs:12
CreateWorkerWithoutVenueCommand.Email src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/Workers/CreateWorkerWithoutVenueCommand.cs:16
GetWorkerByEmailQuery.Email src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Queries/Worker/GetWorkerByEmailQuery.cs:8
GetWorkerByIdQueryResult.Email src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Worker/GetWorkerByIdQueryResult.cs:28

Phone — 20 field(s)

WorkerInviteDto.WorkerPhone src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/WorkerInviteDto.cs:13
ClientInfoViewModel.Phone src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/ClientInfo/ClientInfoViewModel.cs:21
CreateVenueViewModel.Phones src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:22
UpdateVenueViewModel.Phones src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/UpdateVenueViewModel.cs:22
InviteViewModel.Phone src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Worker/InviteViewModel.cs:15
WorkerViewModel.Phone src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Worker/WorkerViewModel.cs:19
ContactInfo.Phones src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/ValueObjects/ContactInfo.cs:25
Worker.Phone src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/Worker.cs:65
GetClientInfoFirebaseQueryResult.Phone src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/QueryResults/GetClientInfoFirebaseQueryResult.cs:17
CreateVenueCommand.Phones src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/Venue/CreateVenueCommand.cs:21
UpdateVenueCommand.Phones src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/Venue/UpdateVenueCommand.cs:23
CreateWorkerWithoutVenueCommand.Phone src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/Workers/CreateWorkerWithoutVenueCommand.cs:10
CreateInviteCommand.Phone src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/Workers/Invites/CreateInviteCommand.cs:13
GetWorkerByPhoneQuery.Phone src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Queries/Worker/GetWorkerByPhoneQuery.cs:8
GetUserProfileByIdQueryResult.Phone src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/UserProfile/GetUserProfileByIdQueryResult.cs:14
GetVenueByIdQueryResult.Phones src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Venue/GetVenueByIdQueryResult.cs:27
GetInviteByEmailQueryResult.Phone src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Worker/GetInviteByEmailQueryResult.cs:11
GetInviteByPhoneQueryResult.Phone src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Worker/GetInviteByPhoneQueryResult.cs:13
GetWorkerByIdQueryResult.Phone src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Worker/GetWorkerByIdQueryResult.cs:19
TelemetryInitializer.Phone src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Logging.AppInsights/TelemetryInitializer.cs:15

Name — 15 field(s)

ClientInfoViewModel.Surname src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/ClientInfo/ClientInfoViewModel.cs:15
SignupViewModel.Surname src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Signup/SignupViewModel.cs:11
UserProfileViewModel.LastName src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/UserProfile/UserProfileViewModel.cs:11
WorkerViewModel.LastName src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Worker/WorkerViewModel.cs:25
Worker.LastName src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/Worker.cs:69
SetupFirebaseTokenCommand.Surname src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Commands/User/SetupFirebaseTokenCommand.cs:22
GetVerificationLinkQuery.Surname src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Queries/GetVerificationLinkQuery.cs:12
GetClientInfoFirebaseQueryResult.Surname src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/QueryResults/GetClientInfoFirebaseQueryResult.cs:13
GetCurrentUserQueryResult.Surname src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/QueryResults/GetCurrentUserQueryResult.cs:13
UpdateUserProfileCommand.LastName src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/UserProfile/UpdateUserProfileCommand.cs:13
CreateWorkerCommand.Surname src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/Workers/CreateWorkerCommand.cs:10
CreateWorkerWithoutVenueCommand.LastName src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/Workers/CreateWorkerWithoutVenueCommand.cs:14
UpdateWorkerCommand.LastName src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/Workers/UpdateWorkerCommand.cs:15
GetUserProfileByIdQueryResult.LastName src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/UserProfile/GetUserProfileByIdQueryResult.cs:11
GetWorkerByIdQueryResult.LastName src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Worker/GetWorkerByIdQueryResult.cs:25

Richardchanjr90-Cpu/ddd-By-Example

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 59% · Adequate · gated by X5

At a glance — Architecture · 84% · Exemplary

At a glance — Maturity · 77% · Exemplary

At a glance — Readiness · 75% · Exemplary

At a glance — Security · 86% · Exemplary

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 50% · Adequate · gated by DM1, DM2, DM7

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

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Downloadable artifacts