richardchanjr90-cpu/ddd-by-example

Executive summary

richardchanjr90-cpu/ddd-by-example scores 55 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while five of its eight lenses score higher still: Event-Driven at 100, Architecture at 84 and Production Readiness at 72, all rated Exemplary, and Security and Compliance at 76 and Performance at 70, both rated Strong. Watchdog judged it as a template, sample or demo, meant to be read or copied, so the dimensions about building, releasing and running a product don't apply, and its lenses are rated against a lower bar. The score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The score is lower than those five because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Maturity, which scores 50 and is rated Adequate. Its Documentation accuracy dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Maturity can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value and to resolve the 7 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt. The weakest lenses score close to each other, so improving any of them moves the score.

23 findings are critical: seven in Explicit Debt, six in Aggregate boundaries, four in Change Coupling, three in Test Quality, two in Project dependency cycles and one in Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary.

Watchdog couldn't measure Dependency Hygiene, Dependency Vulnerabilities and IL Efficiency in this code, so those dimensions are left out of the score. The product code is 18,562 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €26,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 52 Adequate, capped by Nullable reference types Architecture 84 ★ Exemplary Maturity 50 Adequate, capped by Documentation accuracy Production Readiness 72 ★ Exemplary Security and Compliance 76 Strong Domain Modelling 54 Adequate, capped by Aggregate boundaries and Strongly-typed ids Event-Driven 100 ★ Exemplary Performance 70 Strong

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Maturity 50 · counts for 45%Code Health 52 · counts for 25%Domain Modelling 54 · counts for 14%Performance 70 · counts for 8%Production Readiness 72 · counts for 4%Security and Compliance 76 · counts for 2%Architecture 84 · counts for 1%Event-Driven 100 · counts for 1%

The weakest lenses score close to each other, so improving any of them moves the score.

Code composition: what the lines of code are Most of the hand-written code is supporting code, such as wiring, settings and declarations, and business logic is 12% of it. That is normal for a service that mainly connects other systems or stores and fetches records, and worth a look if this product is meant to hold complex business rules.

Business logic 9%Supporting code 69%Tests 10%Generated by tools 13%

New since the last survey: 7 findings

These 7 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026.

Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED
Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED
Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED
Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED
Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling: CreateVenueViewModel.cs ↔ GetVenueByIdQueryResult.cs src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs
Async correctness · Blocking `FileStream.Read` inside an `async` method src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueImageAppService.cs
Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary · Domain depends on infrastructure: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries.csproj

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 8 findings

These 8 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Repository granularity · Repository for a non-root entity: LoyaltyProgramRepository → LoyaltyProgram src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/LoyaltyProgramRepository.cs
Repository granularity · Repository for a non-root entity: OrderRepository → Order src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/OrderRepository.cs
Repository granularity · Repository for a non-root entity: ProductGroupRepository → ProductGroup src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/ProductGroupRepository.cs
Repository granularity · Repository for a non-root entity: ProductRepository → Product src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/ProductRepository.cs
Repository granularity · Repository for a non-root entity: PurchaseRepository → Purchase src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/PurchaseRepository.cs
Repository granularity · Repository for a non-root entity: VenueAdminRepository → Venue src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/VenueAdminRepository.cs
Repository granularity · Repository for a non-root entity: WorkerRepository → Worker src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/WorkerRepository.cs
Async & latency hygiene · Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false)

Rebuild cost: about €26,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€8,900 to €44,000, for 148 to 462 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	High, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.8 at a score of 55. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Small: 18,562 lines of product code, of which 58% is declarations and boilerplate, 31% straight logic and 12% logic with branches

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Product.cs.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · Comment Value

Resolve the 7 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with OrderAppService.cs, LoyaltyTenantDbContext.cs, UpdateUserEmailCommandHandler.cs.

Raises the score by about 3 points · Low effort · Explicit Debt

Reconcile the README with reality: docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/medium/README.md names `docs/images/`, but no file or folder `docs/images` exists.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · Documentation accuracy

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €26,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 50 (Weak). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Maturity grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Maturity actions in Top priorities.

One cause behind 35 Domain Modelling findings · Common cause

35 findings in the Domain Modelling lens come from the same cause. The code models the business as objects, such as an order or a customer, and each object should guard its own rules: an order, for example, should refuse to be shipped before it has been paid. Here the objects don't do that. Other code can change an object's data directly, so it can put an order into a state the rules forbid. Some objects only hold data, while the rules that should keep that data valid sit elsewhere in the code. Identifiers, such as order numbers and customer numbers, are passed around as plain numbers or text, so nothing stops the code from using one kind where another belongs. Because all of these findings have the same cause, fixing it once, in the business objects themselves, deals with them together.

Based on: Encapsulated state (5 findings) · Rich vs anemic model (2 findings) · Strongly-typed ids (28 findings)

What to do: Give each business object the methods that enforce its rules, such as a method for shipping an order that first checks it has been paid, and let only those methods change its data. Give each kind of identifier a type of its own, so an order number can't be used where a customer number belongs.

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 4 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 Comment Value findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

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: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

209 modules, with 276 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 6 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 169 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 Application.Storage.Dto	3 Application.ViewModels.ProductGroup	4 Common.Shared.Settings	5 Core.Contracts	6 Core.Entities.Base.Interface	7 Core.Entities.SeedWork	8 Core.Entities.SeedWork.Interfaces	9 Core.Outbox.Entities	10 Core.Outbox.Entities.Services	13 Domain.Handlers.Queries.QueryResults.Orders	14 Domain.Handlers.Queries.QueryResults.ProductGroup	15 Domain.Handlers.Queries.QueryResults.Venue	17 Application.ViewModels.LoyaltyProductGroup	18 Application.ViewModels.Purchase	19 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Status.Abstract	20 Core.Entities.Base	22 Infrastructure.Events.DataAccess.Context.Interface	25 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Products	26 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Purchases	27 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Workers	29 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders	30 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Venues	31 Core.Entities.Aggregates.ProductGroups	32 Core.Entities.Aggregates.LoyaltyPrograms	34 Core.Entities.Interfaces.Repository	35 Infrastructure.DataAccess.Context.Interface
1 Application.Storage.Dto
2 Application.Storage.Dto.Orders
3 Application.ViewModels.ProductGroup
4 Common.Shared.Settings
5 Core.Contracts
6 Core.Entities.Base.Interface
7 Core.Entities.SeedWork
8 Core.Entities.SeedWork.Interfaces
9 Core.Outbox.Entities
10 Core.Outbox.Entities.Services
11 Domain.Handlers.Notifications.Base
12 Domain.Handlers.Queries.Commands.Venue
13 Domain.Handlers.Queries.QueryResults.Orders
14 Domain.Handlers.Queries.QueryResults.ProductGroup
15 Domain.Handlers.Queries.QueryResults.Venue
16 Infrastructure.Handlers
17 Application.ViewModels.LoyaltyProductGroup		1
18 Application.ViewModels.Purchase										1
19 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Status.Abstract						1															1
20 Core.Entities.Base					2	1
21 Domain.Handlers.Queries.QueryResults.LoyaltyProductGroup											1
22 Infrastructure.Events.DataAccess.Context.Interface				1				1
23 Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers.Queries			1
24 Application.Venue	1	2								1	1	1	2	4
25 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Products							1									1							1
26 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Purchases							1									1
27 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Workers					1	1	1									1
28 Infrastructure.Events.DataAccess.Context								1									1
29 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders					1	1	1								1	1		1
30 Core.Entities.Aggregates.Venues							1									1		1					1	1
31 Core.Entities.Aggregates.ProductGroups							1									1						1
32 Core.Entities.Aggregates.LoyaltyPrograms						1	1									2							2
33 Core.Entities.Events.Products																		5					1
34 Core.Entities.Interfaces.Repository							8											1	1	2	1	2	1	2
35 Infrastructure.DataAccess.Context.Interface				1		1	1											1	1	2	2	1	1	2
36 Infrastructure.DataAccess.EntityConfigurations																		1	1	2	2	1	1	3
37 Application.DomainEvents.Handlers.Venues									7																2
38 Infrastructure.Commands.Repository							8											1	1	2	1	2	1	2	8	8
39 Infrastructure.DataAccess.Context				1		1												1	1	2	2	1	1	2		2
40 Infrastructure.Outbox								2	1								1									3

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 52% · 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 9.3 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.2 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 8.5 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 6.3 X1 · Repo Async correctness 7.9 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 6.8 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0

The Bad

X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 5.2 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 5.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 5.2 X4 · Repo Structured logging 5.5

The Ugly

X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 84% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 8.5 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 8.4 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 7.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.7 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 4.8

At a glance — Maturity · 50% · Adequate · gated by M4 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.6 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

The Bad

D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 3.5 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0

The Ugly

M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 72% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 8.4 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 9.7 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 · 76% · Strong ·

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 C3 · Repo Audit Trail 7.5 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0

The Bad

D32 · .NET / C# Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) 5.4 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 6.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 54% · Adequate · gated by DM1, DM2 ·

The Good

DM10 · Repo One transaction, one aggregate 10.0 DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 5.8 DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 9.9 DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 8.6 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 8.3 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 7.9 DM7 · Repo Repository granularity 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 10.0

The Ugly

DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 2.2 DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 3.0

At a glance — Event-Driven · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 70% · Strong ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A01:2025 — Broken Access Control	6	Medium

Roadmap

First, reconcile documentation with reality by correcting project and path references that no longer exist, and resolve the redundant comment in Product.cs. Next, address the seven write-only private fields across OrderAppService, LoyaltyTenantDbContext, and UpdateUserEmailCommandHandler to reduce explicit debt. Finally, establish a practice of documenting significant design decisions in a dedicated folder and standardize null handling by testing or removing redundant null-conditional operators.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Product.cs.	+3.6 pts	Low	Comment Value
Resolve the 7 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with OrderAppService.cs, LoyaltyTenantDbContext.cs, UpdateUserEmailCommandHandler.cs.	+2.8 pts	Low	Explicit Debt
Reconcile the README with reality: docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/medium/README.md names `docs/images/`, but no file or folder `docs/images` exists.	+3.9 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+2.2 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Where a method uses `?.` on a symbol and then dereferences it directly, settle the question once: test it before the first use and handle null, or drop the `?.`.	+2.1 pts	Medium	Nullable reference types
Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id, never by object reference, so each aggregate stays an independent consistency boundary.	+1.7 pts	Medium	Aggregate boundaries
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.	+1.5 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.	+1.4 pts	Medium	Strongly-typed ids

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 79 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 3% mixed · 97% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs	4.4	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: CreateVenueViewModel.cs ↔ UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs
src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/LoyaltyTenantDbContext.cs	5.8	Mixed	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/LoyaltyProductGroups/GetLoyaltyProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs	6.1	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Venues/CreateVenueCommandHandler.cs	6.1	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs	6.5	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: WorkerAppService.cs ↔ REDACTED
REDACTED	6.9	Near-clean	Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): REDACTED
REDACTED	6.9	Near-clean	Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): REDACTED
src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs	7.0	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (5 lines × 2)
src/LoyaltyProgram/LoyaltyProgram.csproj	7.0	Near-clean	Coupling: Unstable project LoyaltyProgram
src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC/Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC.csproj	7.0	Near-clean	Coupling: Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC
src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands.csproj	7.0	Near-clean	Coupling: Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands
src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts.csproj	7.0	Near-clean	Coupling: Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts
src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries.csproj	7.0	Near-clean	Coupling: Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries
src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries.csproj	7.0	Near-clean	Coupling: Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries
test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/Tests/Venue/VenueTests.cs	7.0	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): ShouldGetOnlyOwnVenues
src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/OrderAppService.cs	7.6	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Commands/User/UpdateUserEmailCommandHandler.cs	7.6	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Outbox/EventBusPublishingService.cs	7.6	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenuePutImageFunction.cs	7.6	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: WriteOnlyPrivateField
common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/CreateVenueNotification.cs	7.8	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (59 lines × 2)

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 23

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 165

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 68

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 7

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 79 of 85 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 6 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 85 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D28D29D32D34D35D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9C3DM1DM10DM11DM12DM2DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8DM9ED1ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P10P6P8PF1PF2PF3X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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, 243 of 256 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
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a160f7-68f3-70a3-b274-3d47dead27c7.

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.

D9 Test Distribution — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 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. You can widen what we reach: moving the tests into dedicated test projects inside the analyzed solution would let the unit/integration/BDD/E2E split be classified — but the counting gap is ours, so nothing is deducted either way.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The NuGet registry this repository's packages resolve from could not be reached on this run, so no outdated, vulnerable or deprecated package could be read. The tool said: NU1301: The local source 'src/C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft SDKs\NuGetPackages\' doesn't exist. [src/LoyaltyProgram.sln]. This is OUR side and an ENVIRONMENT fault — the collector exists and ran — so the remedy is the scan's network path to a NuGet package source, and a re-run with it reachable measures this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 594 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Msbuild failed when processing the file 'src/LoyaltyProgram/LoyaltyProgram.csproj' with message: The local source 'src/C:/Program Files (x86)/Microsoft SDKs/NuGetPackages/' doesn't exist.
D18 Solution Shape — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Nuget: a NuGet package source could not be reached (NU1301: The local source 'src/C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft SDKs\NuGetPackages\' doesn't exist.). The scanner exists and ran; what failed is the scan's network path to the registry, so nothing was read and nothing here is a statement about the repository. A re-run with the registry reachable measures it.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
X2 Cancellation propagation — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 84 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 124.
Package restore incomplete — third-party types were unresolved in part of the solution — NuGet restore did not complete for src/LoyaltyProgram/LoyaltyProgram.csproj, src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Loyalty.Core.Entities.csproj, src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Loyalty.Common.Shared.csproj, src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels.csproj, src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.csproj and 18 more, so those projects were analysed with framework references only: every check keyed on a third-party type saw an error type there and reported nothing. Findings on those projects are a lower bound; run `dotnet restore` on them and rescan.

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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
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.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
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").
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
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 (6): D19, D21, D22, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They 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 Duplication9.3 / 10Stronggated by 28 serious findings✓ 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

28 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×4src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:36

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×3src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Worker/WorkerViewModel.cs:15

Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×2src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Orders/GetAllOrdersByVenueIdQueryHandler.cs:47

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×2src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:12

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×2src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:9

+ 14 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CreateVenueViewModel.cs, LoyaltyProductGroupGetViewModel.cs, CreateProductViewModel.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with WorkerViewModel.cs, CreateLoyaltyProgramNotification.cs, BurnPurchaseNotification.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with GetAllOrdersByVenueIdQueryHandler.cs, GetProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.5 / 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 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts · ×3src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts.csproj:1

Unstable project LoyaltyProgramsrc/LoyaltyProgram/LoyaltyProgram.csproj:1

Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoCsrc/Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC/Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC.csproj:1

Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commandssrc/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands.csproj:1

Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Common.Sharedsrc/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Loyalty.Common.Shared.csproj:1

What to do

Resolve the 3 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling — start with Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts.csproj, Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries.csproj, Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Unstable project LoyaltyProgram finding(s) in Coupling — start with LoyaltyProgram.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC finding(s) in Coupling — start with Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC.csproj. — 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)8.4 / 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

3 of 23 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: LoyaltyVenueAppService (LCOM4 10) · ×3src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs:20

What to do

Resolve the 3 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs, WorkerAppService.cs, Worker.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality8.4 / 10Adequategated by 3 critical findings✓ 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, 1 mock references across 57 tests.

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

Mock framework: Moq

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?

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 311 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 49 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 204 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Stronggated by 7 serious findings✓ 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. Repeated repair below the complexity floor: src/LoyaltyProgram/Startup.cs (9 of 15 changes were fixes); src/LoyaltyProgram/WebJobsStartup.cs (8 of 10 changes were fixes); src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Extensions/HttpRequestExtensions.cs (7 of 8 changes were fixes)

Repeated repair: src/LoyaltyProgram/Startup.cs · ×7src/LoyaltyProgram/Startup.cs:23

What to do

Resolve the 7 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with Startup.cs, WebJobsStartup.cs, HttpRequestExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.2 / 10Adequategated by 7 critical findings✓ 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

16 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 18562 LoC in the .NET projects (0.4/KLoC) → score 9.2. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped.

WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×7src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/OrderAppService.cs:19

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

CommentedOutCode · ×3src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:46

What to do

Resolve the 7 WriteOnlyPrivateField finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with OrderAppService.cs, LoyaltyTenantDbContext.cs, UpdateUserEmailCommandHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ProductGroupArchivedDomainEventHandler.cs, ProductGroupChangedDomainEventHandler.cs, LoyaltyProductGroupAppService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ProductGroup.cs, Startup.cs, ObjectStore.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape8.5 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

31 projects, 633 source files, 18562 hand-written lines of code (18562 production / 0 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), plus 3182 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 66 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish). Measured across 2 solutions loaded as one workspace: `src/LoyaltyProgram.sln`, `common/Loyalty.Venue.Common.sln`.

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

What to do

Resolve the 1 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README and three docs/articles directories form a complete DDD reference built around a real loyalty-and-ordering platform. The root README is the project overview (why it exists, what invariants drive it) plus an architecture tour; the articles are standalone publishable drafts ordered by topic with publishing steps, cross-part links, and a checklist; the docs/articles/README.md covers repository structure, running locally, secrets, and license, while the full docs/articles directory is itself documented. The XML-doc coverage across every tier (domain core, application, infrastructure) is 0-217 at 0%, indicating no documentation exists for any package in the suite. This is a well-structured DDD-by-example documentation set covering five domain-partnered articles (05-multitenancy-query-filters.md through 05-multitenancy-query-filters.md) with each one an overview plus a focused topic. The series is cohesive and rich in design rationale, code examples, and trade-offs for the multi-tenancy row-level model, covering isolation choices, tenant-scoped entity declarations, query-global filters, write-side enforcement, and the dual-write bug. It also includes a dedicated article on versioned strategies as pluggable tagged JSON.

Low XML-doc coverage: LoyaltyProgram · ×28src/LoyaltyProgram/LoyaltyProgram.csproj

What to do

Resolve the 28 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with LoyaltyProgram.csproj, Loyalty.Core.Contracts.csproj, Loyalty.Core.Entities.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (28 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ 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 ConsistencyStrong◐ 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 Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 API inconsistencies across 26 exposed types.

Redundant Type Definition: `CommandResult` and `ICommandNotificationResult` have identical property signatures (`Success`, `Message`, `Result`, `OnSuccessNotifications`, `OnFailNotifications`). `ICommandNotificationResult` appears to be an interface that duplicates the concrete `CommandResult` class entirely, rather than abstracting a smaller subset or behavior.

Naming/Intent Overlap: `CommandNotificationResult` (class) and `ICommandNotificationResult` (interface) share the exact same shape. The class name suggests it is a result of a command notification process, while the interface name suggests it is a contract for such results. However, since the class implements the interface with no additional behavior or state, the interface adds no value and creates confusion about whether consumers should depend on the interface or the class.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Redundant Type Definition finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Naming/Intent Overlap 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 ValueWeak◐ 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 / 1 redundant across 22 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentsrc/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs:15

What to do

Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Product.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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 29 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: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

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?

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.

Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR LEAK scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset: personal data crossing a boundary it should not — reaching a log/console sink, a URL or query string, or unprotected browser storage. Matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. A clean sweep is unscored rather than an unearned 10, and is a statement about the leak paths checked only — this dimension does not inventory the personal data a repository holds (the personal-data map and the C1-C5 compliance cards do that), so it never reports that a repository has no personal-data surface. Reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive over the leak paths, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 71 of the 604 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.7 / 10Adequategated by 4 critical findings✓ 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. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: VenueGetFunction.cs↔VenueDeleteFunction.cs 80%; VenueGetFunction.cs↔VenuePutFunction.cs 73%; VenueGetAllFunction.cs↔VenueGetFunction.cs 67%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: CreateVenueViewModel.cs ↔ UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs · ×4src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:1

Change-coupling hub: VenueGetFunction.cs → VenueDeleteFunction.cs, VenuePostFunction.cs, VenuePutFunction.cs · ×2src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Venue/VenueGetFunction.cs

Change coupling: CreateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs ↔ UpdateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cssrc/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/LoyaltyPrograms/CreateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs:1

What to do

Resolve the 4 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with CreateVenueViewModel.cs (2), AutoMapperProfile.cs, WorkerAppService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Change-coupling hub finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with VenueGetFunction.cs, VenueGetAllFunction.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with CreateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 30 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.1test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/LoyaltyProgram.Tests.csproj:4

What to do

Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with LoyaltyProgram.Tests.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d44_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 composition4.8 / 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. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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.

The namespaces Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.LoyaltyPrograms ↔ Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.ProductGroups ↔ Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Products ↔ Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Venues depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.ProductGroups → Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Venues (Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.ProductGroups.ProductGroup → Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Venues.Venue, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:3
The namespaces Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders ↔ Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Status.Abstract depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders → Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Status.Abstract (Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Order → Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Status.Abstract.OrderStatusEnumeration, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/Order.cs:8

What to do

Break namespace cycles inside a project by moving the shared type to a namespace both sides can use, or by inverting the back edge behind an interface.

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 declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. 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 boundaries2.2 / 10Weak✓ 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.

`LoyaltyProductGroup` references the aggregate root `LoyaltyProgram` directly (via `LoyaltyProgram`) — hold its `LoyaltyProgramId` instead. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProductGroup.cs:52
`LoyaltyProgram` references the aggregate root `LoyaltyProductGroup` directly (via `loyaltyProductGroups`) — hold its `LoyaltyProductGroupId` instead. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProgram.cs:54
`LoyaltyProgram` references the aggregate root `LoyaltyProductGroup` directly (via `LoyaltyProductGroups`) — hold its `LoyaltyProductGroupId` instead. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProgram.cs:56
`ProductGroup` references the aggregate root `Venue` directly (via `OwnerVenue`) — hold its `VenueId` instead. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:31
`Venue` references the aggregate root `LoyaltyProgram` directly (via `LoyaltyPrograms`) — hold its `LoyaltyProgramId` instead. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:80
`Venue` references the aggregate root `ProductGroup` directly (via `ProductGroups`) — hold its `ProductGroupId` instead. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/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?

DM10 · One transaction, one aggregate10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a single operation mutates more than one aggregate root. An aggregate is a consistency boundary, so saving two together fuses them into one — the second's invariants come to depend on the first's transaction, and the pair can no longer be separated. Reads of other aggregates are not counted.

Method: Neutral body surface (DDD-gated): every method body scanned for repository WRITE calls (Add/Update/Save/Remove/Delete/Insert/Store and their async forms), keyed on the ARGUMENT type rather than the repository type — three `IRepository<T>` writes collapse to one repository but are three distinct aggregates. Reads (Get/Find/Load/Query) are excluded, so loading another aggregate for context never counts. Score is offending methods over methods that write at all. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM11 · Constructible invalid state5.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.

Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.

`LoyaltyProgram`'s public constructor takes `name`, `description`, `venueId` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `LoyaltyProgram` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProgram.cs:19
`OrderItem`'s public constructor takes `id`, `amount`, `productId`, `orderId` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `OrderItem` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/OrderItem.cs:11
`ProductGroup`'s public constructor takes `venueId`, `name` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `ProductGroup` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:13
`Product`'s public constructor takes `name`, `price`, `description` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `Product` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs:46
`Venue`'s public constructor takes `name`, `ownerId` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `Venue` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:21
`VenueWorker`'s public constructor takes `venueId`, `workerId`, `positionName` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `VenueWorker` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/VenueWorker.cs:9

What to do

Give each aggregate one way in that can refuse — a guarded constructor, value-object parameters that validate themselves, or a private constructor behind a factory that returns a failure.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain types receive the time and randomness their rules depend on, rather than reading the process clock or a global random source directly — an ambient read makes the rule it feeds untestable at the instant that matters and lets two reads inside one operation disagree.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated, C#/VB only): domain-layer types scanned for ambient reads — DateTime/DateTimeOffset.Now/UtcNow/Today, Random.Shared, new Random(), Stopwatch.GetTimestamp — resolved against the semantic model, with a comment/string-stripped token fallback only where resolution fails. Body reads are scored; field/property initialisers are surfaced unscored. Apply/When folds excluded (ES1 owns them). Deterministic, symbol-resolved.

`PurchaseBurnedEventHandler` reads `DateTime.Now` inside `Handle`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`. — src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/Purchases/PurchaseBurnedEventHandler.cs:23
`PurchaseMadeEventHandler` reads `DateTime.Now` inside `Handle`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`. — src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/Purchases/PurchaseMadeEventHandler.cs:22

What to do

Pass the instant into the domain method that needs it, or inject `TimeProvider` (BCL, .NET 8+) and read it there — then a test can choose the moment a rule is evaluated at.

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. An id wrapper is recognised by VALUE SEMANTICS, not by being a struct — a record struct, a record class (`record ApartmentId(Guid Value)`) or a class declared by a typed-id base (`class MemberId : TypedIdValueBase`) all count, while a plain mutable class (reference equality) and a verb-phrase query record (`GetCustomerById`) do not. 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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Base/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/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. — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/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, and collections handed out as read-only views rather than the mutable backing collection — instead of exposing writable state that bypasses invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; 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). — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/Order.cs:17
`OrderItem` exposes publicly writable state (Id). — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/OrderItem.cs:9
`ProductGroup` exposes publicly writable state (OwnerVenue). — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:11
`Venue` exposes publicly writable state (Images, LoyaltyPrograms, ProductGroups). — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:18
`AuditableEntity` exposes publicly writable state (CreatedBy, ModifiedBy, Modified, Created). — src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Base/AuditableEntity.cs:8

What to do

Make entity setters private/init-only and hand collections out as IReadOnlyList/IReadOnlyCollection over a private backing field; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary7.9 / 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.

The domain project `Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries` references `System.Data.SqlClient` — a persistence dependency; the domain should own a port and let an infrastructure project reference it. — src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries.csproj:18

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether repositories are per aggregate root (not per child entity) and keep the persistence query handle behind the contract, so the root's invariants can't be bypassed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): repository abstraction detection; repositories over non-aggregate-root entities flagged, and (C#/VB) repository INTERFACES whose members return a live persistence query handle (IQueryable/DbSet/IMongoQueryable) — implementations and specification evaluators are out of population by design, since composing a query internally is what an implementation is for. Deterministic, DDD-native.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether one domain rule is decided — or one measurement produced — in more than one place, rather than living on the type that owns it.

Method: Neutral body surface plus Roslyn (DDD-gated), two arms. DECISION (Roslyn only): a predicate over a domain type's members judged in two or more types, where none of those decisions live on the owning type — operands of comparisons and relational property patterns only, so a member merely passed as an argument is not judged. DERIVATION: a plain all-numeric carrier of ≥2 members, with no base type and exactly one constructor, CONSTRUCTED as the result of a method (returned or assigned, never inline as an argument) in two or more types other than its own — the same measurement produced twice, which centralising the judgement does not fix. DERIVATION runs on every language whose frontend declares the produced-or-passed fact per construction (Roslyn and the Java sidecar today); a target with only the derivation arm carries an engine gap naming the decision arm as not assessed, and a frontend that declares nothing keeps the dimension not measured rather than clean. Single-member rules, test code and generated code are out of population for both. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency9.7 / 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.

`ProductGroups.CreateProductGroupCommandHandler.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. — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/ProductGroups/CreateProductGroupCommandHandler.cs:22
`Purchases.BurnPurchaseCommandHandler.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. — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Purchases/BurnPurchaseCommandHandler.cs:24

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) — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:10, src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:15, src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:20, …

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, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

`EmptyMediator` has 4 unfinished members out of 4 declared members (methods, properties, indexers and events, whether or not each carries a body) — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/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) — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:10, src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/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) — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:20, src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/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. — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Purchases/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. — src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Ping/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) — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/Scoped/ObjectStore.cs:37, src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:58, src/LoyaltyProgram/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

Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 29 of 29 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 numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, 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 your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

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 accuracy0.0 / 10Critical◐ 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.

docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md:203
docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md:208
docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md:213
docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md:218
docs/articles/medium/README.md names `docs/images/`, but no file or folder `docs/images` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/articles/medium/README.md:37

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists; docs/articles/medium/README.md names `docs/images/`, but no file or folder `docs/images` exists.

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; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

68/68 types (100%) 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; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

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

What to do

On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut the allocations those paths would otherwise make.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`FileStream.Read` blocks the thread on I/O while `FileStream.ReadAsync` exists to wait without one — inside a method that is already `async`, await the twin. — src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueImageAppService.cs:94

What to do

Blocking `FileStream.Read` inside an `async` method

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

`dbContext` is a `DbContextScoped`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 85). Every use of it in `ContextFactory` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var dbContext = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/Scoped/DbContextScopedExtensions.cs:85

What to do

Each finding names the value and the span that decides who owns it — the `new` that created it, or the constructor parameter that handed it over. Confirm ownership from that span, then make the disposal match it: release what this type created, leave what it was injected with to whoever created THAT, and drop a finalizer whose type holds nothing unmanaged to release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation6.8 / 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. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Only 114/226 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. (×39) — src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Code/PurchaseGetActiveByCodeFunction.cs:22, src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Order/OrderGetAllFunction.cs:30, src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Order/OrderGetFunction.cs:30, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

The guard on line 28 rejects `code` and line 30 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(code)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `code`, and on that path `code` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/CodeAppService.cs:30

What to do

Each finding names the throw and the test in its own condition that is true of a NON-null value. Confirm from the two, then throw the exception that describes what was actually wrong: `ArgumentException` for a value that arrived empty, or the .NET 8 helpers that spell the whole guard in one line and pick the type for you — `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty(s)` / `ThrowIfNullOrWhiteSpace(s)` for strings, `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(x)` followed by `ArgumentOutOfRangeException.ThrowIfZero(x.Count)` for a collection. Splitting the two conditions is usually clearer than picking one exception for both: they are different failures and the caller may want to handle them differently.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`catch (Exception)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch. (×3) — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/PhoneValidator.cs:27, src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/Interface/ImageValidator.cs:21, src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/Interface/ImageValidator.cs:43

What to do

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging5.5 / 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. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. 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. (×10) — src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:99, src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenuePutImageFunction.cs:84, src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueLogo/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.

This method contradicts itself about `data`: line 26 writes `data?.VenueComment`, which says `data` can be null, but line 22 then dereferences it directly as `data.ChangedStatus` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `data` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `data` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side. — src/LoyaltyProgram/Storage/OrderChangedNotificationFunction.cs:22
This method contradicts itself about `request`: line 35 writes `request?.Id`, which says `request` can be null, but line 24 then dereferences it directly as `request.Id` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `request` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `request` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side. — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/LoyaltyProductGroups/ArchiveLoyaltyProductGroupCommandHandler.cs:24
0/28 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

Where a method uses `?.` on a symbol and then dereferences it directly, settle the question once: test it before the first use and handle null, or drop the `?.`.
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	52%	Adequate — gated by X5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	84%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	50%	Adequate — gated by M4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	72%	Exemplary	Solid.
Security	76%	Strong	Solid.
Domain Modelling	54%	Adequate — gated by DM1, DM2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	70%	Strong	Solid.

Unscored — 3 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 4 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

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.
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

Not included — 43 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
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
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.
D11 Test Reliability — No test suite was found to re-run, so reliability couldn't be assessed. Two searches produced that zero and both came back empty: the classifier that reads the loaded workspace recognised no suite it could run, and a walk of the source on disk — which covers the JS/TS `*.test.*` and `*.spec.*` conventions and probes for a Pester suite — found no test source in any other ecosystem either. Neither search reaches a suite that is missing from the loaded workspace and carries no name either walk recognises, so this is 'no suite found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — a NuGet package source could not be reached
D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
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 — small single-context codebase (18,562 production LoC in the .NET projects) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Aggregate roots were found in only one source directory (Loyalty.Core.Entities), which is a layered codebase, not two contexts. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not measured — a package registry could not be reached
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); 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.
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
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.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
ED3 Event naming — no domain or integration events detected — event-naming check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens 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.
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) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
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.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

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.

Critical — 23 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · WriteOnlyPrivateField · ×7

WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/OrderAppService.cs:19 — private IMapper mapper — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/LoyaltyTenantDbContext.cs:27 — private IMediator mediator — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Commands/User/UpdateUserEmailCommandHandler.cs:16 — private IHttpContextAccessor accessor — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/LoyaltyProductGroups/GetLoyaltyProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs:20 — private IHttpContextAccessor accessor — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Venues/CreateVenueCommandHandler.cs:24 — private IOptions<VenueSettings> venueOptions — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Outbox/EventBusPublishingService.cs:16 — private ILoyaltyTenantDbContext loyaltyTenantDbContext — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenuePutImageFunction.cs:27 — private LoyaltyVenueAppService service — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries · Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate · ×6

Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: LoyaltyProductGroup.LoyaltyProgram src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProductGroup.cs:52 — `LoyaltyProductGroup` references the aggregate root `LoyaltyProgram` directly (via `LoyaltyProgram`) — hold its `LoyaltyProgramId` instead.
Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: LoyaltyProgram.loyaltyProductGroups src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProgram.cs:54 — `LoyaltyProgram` references the aggregate root `LoyaltyProductGroup` directly (via `loyaltyProductGroups`) — hold its `LoyaltyProductGroupId` instead.
Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: LoyaltyProgram.LoyaltyProductGroups src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProgram.cs:56 — `LoyaltyProgram` references the aggregate root `LoyaltyProductGroup` directly (via `LoyaltyProductGroups`) — hold its `LoyaltyProductGroupId` instead.
Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: ProductGroup.OwnerVenue src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:31 — `ProductGroup` references the aggregate root `Venue` directly (via `OwnerVenue`) — hold its `VenueId` instead.
Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: Venue.LoyaltyPrograms src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:80 — `Venue` references the aggregate root `LoyaltyProgram` directly (via `LoyaltyPrograms`) — hold its `LoyaltyProgramId` instead.
Aggregate holds a reference to another aggregate: Venue.ProductGroups src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:82 — `Venue` references the aggregate root `ProductGroup` directly (via `ProductGroups`) — hold its `ProductGroupId` instead.

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×4

Boundary-crossing change coupling: CreateVenueViewModel.cs ↔ UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:1 — `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs` (context Loyalty.Application.ViewModels) and `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Venues/UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs` (context Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — 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. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `dd0fee33` Added status (at that commit the file was still `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Commands/Venues/UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs`); `e50ae1b3` Updated images (at that commit the files were still `Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/VenueViewModel.cs` and `Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Commands/Venues/UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs`); `db7199a3` #5 Updated working hours (at that commit the files were still `Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/VenueViewModel.cs` and `Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Commands/Venues/UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: CreateVenueViewModel.cs ↔ GetVenueByIdQueryResult.cs src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:1 — `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs` (context Loyalty.Application.ViewModels) and `src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Venue/GetVenueByIdQueryResult.cs` (context Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — 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. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `dd0fee33` Added status; `e50ae1b3` Updated images (at that commit the files were still `Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/VenueViewModel.cs` and `Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Venue/GetVenueByIdQueryResult.cs`); `db7199a3` #5 Updated working hours (at that commit the files were still `Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/VenueViewModel.cs` and `Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Venue/GetVenueByIdQueryResult.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: AutoMapperProfile.cs ↔ UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs src/Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper/AutoMapperProfile.cs:1 — `src/Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper/AutoMapperProfile.cs` (context Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper) and `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Venues/UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs` (context Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 57% of the time (8 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — 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. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `8a449383` Updated (at that commit the file was still `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Commands/Venues/UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs`); `68208245` Updated stage (at that commit the file was still `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Commands/Venues/UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs`); `dd0fee33` Added status (at that commit the file was still `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Commands/Venues/UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: WorkerAppService.cs ↔ REDACTED src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs:1 — `src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs` (context Loyalty.Application.Venue) and `REDACTED` (context Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 54% of the time (7 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — 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. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `35cbde00` Fixes; `710a25f6` Fixes; `5bcc8924` Fixes — run `git show` on any of them.

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.

AX3 · Project dependency cycles · Namespace dependency cycle · ×2

Namespace dependency cycle src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:3 — The namespaces Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.LoyaltyPrograms ↔ Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.ProductGroups ↔ Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Products ↔ Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Venues depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.ProductGroups → Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Venues (Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.ProductGroups.ProductGroup → Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Venues.Venue, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
Namespace dependency cycle src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/Order.cs:8 — The namespaces Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders ↔ Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Status.Abstract depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders → Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Status.Abstract (Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Order → Loyalty.Core.Entities.Aggregates.Orders.Status.Abstract.OrderStatusEnumeration, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary · Domain depends on infrastructure · ×1

Domain depends on infrastructure: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries.csproj:18 — The domain project `Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries` references `System.Data.SqlClient` — a persistence dependency; the domain should own a port and let an infrastructure project reference it.

Serious — 165 finding(s)

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×39

Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Code/PurchaseGetActiveByCodeFunction.cs:22 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Order/OrderGetAllFunction.cs:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Order/OrderGetFunction.cs:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Ping/PingFunction.cs:22 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/ProductGroup/ProductGroupGetFunction.cs:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Venue/VenueGetFunction.cs:32 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/VenueImages/VenueGetImagesFunction.cs:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Product/ProductImagePatchFunction.cs:48 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/ProductGroup/ProductGroupPostFunction.cs:37 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/ProductGroup/ProductGroupPutFunction.cs:37 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/UserProfile/UserProfilePatchLogoFunction.cs:51 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Venue/VenuePostFunction.cs:38 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Venue/VenuePutFunction.cs:37 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:49 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueDeleteImageFunction.cs:39 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenuePutImageFunction.cs:47 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueLogo/VenueCreateLogoFunction.cs:49 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueLogo/VenueDeleteLogoFunction.cs:39 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueLogo/VenuePutLogoFunction.cs:48 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Worker/WorkerPutFunction.cs:36 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ProcessClientCode src/LoyaltyProgram/ServiceBus/ClientEventsFunction.cs:54 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: CreateOrder src/LoyaltyProgram/ServiceBus/ClientEventsFunction.cs:76 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: PatchOrder src/LoyaltyProgram/ServiceBus/ClientEventsFunction.cs:124 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Storage/NewOrderArrivedNotificationFunction.cs:13 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Run src/LoyaltyProgram/Storage/OrderChangedNotificationFunction.cs:15 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
+ 14 more in this group — see findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×28

Low XML-doc coverage: LoyaltyProgram src/LoyaltyProgram/LoyaltyProgram.csproj — LoyaltyProgram: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/217).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Core.Contracts src/Loyalty.Core.Contracts/Loyalty.Core.Contracts.csproj — Loyalty.Core.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Core.Entities src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Loyalty.Core.Entities.csproj — Loyalty.Core.Entities: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/397).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Common.Shared src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Loyalty.Common.Shared.csproj — Loyalty.Common.Shared: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/114).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Application.ViewModels src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels.csproj — Loyalty.Application.ViewModels: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/235).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Domain.Contracts src/Loyalty.Domain.Contracts/Loyalty.Domain.Contracts.csproj — Loyalty.Domain.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/16).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/66).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Application.Venue src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/Loyalty.Application.Venue.csproj — Loyalty.Application.Venue: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/95).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries.csproj — Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/452).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess(netcoreapp3.1) src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess(netcoreapp3.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/83).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper src/Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper/Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper.csproj — Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC/Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC: 12 % XML-doc coverage (2/17).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto.csproj — Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto: 5 % XML-doc coverage (3/58).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Notifications src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Notifications/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Notifications.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Notifications: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/21).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/21).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries.csproj — Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/44).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers.csproj — Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/90).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/56).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.Outbox src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Outbox/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Outbox.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Outbox: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.Events.DataAccess(netcoreapp3.1) src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Events.DataAccess/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Events.DataAccess.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Events.DataAccess(netcoreapp3.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/10).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Core.Outbox.Entities src/Loyalty.Core.Outbox.Entities/Loyalty.Core.Outbox.Entities.csproj — Loyalty.Core.Outbox.Entities: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/20).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/117).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Infrastructure.Logging.AppInsights src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Logging.AppInsights/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Logging.AppInsights.csproj — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Logging.AppInsights: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/6).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Shared.Contracts common/Loyalty.Shared.Contracts/Loyalty.Shared.Contracts.csproj — Loyalty.Shared.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/20).
Low XML-doc coverage: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications.csproj — Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/173).
+ 3 more in this group — see findings.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×7

Repeated repair: src/LoyaltyProgram/Startup.cs src/LoyaltyProgram/Startup.cs:23 — src/LoyaltyProgram/Startup.cs changed 15 times in last 90 days and 9 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 1 (its worst body is Startup.Configure at line 23), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “#153 fixed”; “#153 fixed”; “#153 fixed”; “#153 fixed”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-03-14..2026-06-12, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-03-14 16:30:00 +03:00' --until='2026-06-12 16:30:00 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/LoyaltyProgram/Startup.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/LoyaltyProgram/WebJobsStartup.cs src/LoyaltyProgram/WebJobsStartup.cs:20 — src/LoyaltyProgram/WebJobsStartup.cs changed 10 times in last 90 days and 8 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 3 (its worst body is WebJobsStartup.Configure at line 20), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Fixes”; “Fixes”; “Fixes”; “Fixes”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-03-14..2026-06-12, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-03-14 16:30:00 +03:00' --until='2026-06-12 16:30:00 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/LoyaltyProgram/WebJobsStartup.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Extensions/HttpRequestExtensions.cs src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Extensions/HttpRequestExtensions.cs:26 — src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Extensions/HttpRequestExtensions.cs changed 8 times in last 90 days and 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 4 (its worst body is HttpRequestExtensions.ValidateSecret at line 26), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “#153 fixed”; “#153 fixed”; “#153 fixed”; “#153 fixed”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-03-14..2026-06-12, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-03-14 16:30:00 +03:00' --until='2026-06-12 16:30:00 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Extensions/HttpRequestExtensions.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper/AutoMapperProfile.cs src/Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper/AutoMapperProfile.cs:38 — src/Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper/AutoMapperProfile.cs changed 10 times in last 90 days and 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 1 (its worst body is AutoMapperProfile.AutoMapperProfile.ctor at line 38), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Fixed lp”; “Fixes”; “Fixes”; “Fixed orders”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-03-14..2026-06-12, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-03-14 16:30:00 +03:00' --until='2026-06-12 16:30:00 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Loyalty.Application.AutoMapper/AutoMapperProfile.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/Venues/VenueCreatedDomainEventHandler.cs src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/Venues/VenueCreatedDomainEventHandler.cs:33 — src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/Venues/VenueCreatedDomainEventHandler.cs changed 5 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 2 (its worst body is VenueCreatedDomainEventHandler.Handle at line 33), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “#153 fixed”; “Fixes”; “Fixes”; “Fixes”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-03-14..2026-06-12, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-03-14 16:30:00 +03:00' --until='2026-06-12 16:30:00 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/Venues/VenueCreatedDomainEventHandler.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/LoyaltyProgram/Storage/OrderChangedNotificationFunction.cs src/LoyaltyProgram/Storage/OrderChangedNotificationFunction.cs:14 — src/LoyaltyProgram/Storage/OrderChangedNotificationFunction.cs changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 9 (its worst body is OrderChangedNotificationFunction.Run at line 14), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Fixed lp”; “Fixed lp”; “Fixes”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-03-14..2026-06-12, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-03-14 16:30:00 +03:00' --until='2026-06-12 16:30:00 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/LoyaltyProgram/Storage/OrderChangedNotificationFunction.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/LoyaltyProgramRepository.cs src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/LoyaltyProgramRepository.cs:81 — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/LoyaltyProgramRepository.cs changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 3 (its worst body is LoyaltyProgramRepository.Update at line 81), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Fixes”; “Fixes”; “Fixes”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-03-14..2026-06-12, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-03-14 16:30:00 +03:00' --until='2026-06-12 16:30:00 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Commands.Repository/LoyaltyProgramRepository.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

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.

DM11 · Constructible invalid state · Constructible in an invalid state · ×6

Constructible in an invalid state: LoyaltyProgram src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProgram.cs:19 — `LoyaltyProgram`'s public constructor takes `name`, `description`, `venueId` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `LoyaltyProgram` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: OrderItem src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/OrderItem.cs:11 — `OrderItem`'s public constructor takes `id`, `amount`, `productId`, `orderId` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `OrderItem` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: ProductGroup src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:13 — `ProductGroup`'s public constructor takes `venueId`, `name` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `ProductGroup` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: Product src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs:46 — `Product`'s public constructor takes `name`, `price`, `description` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `Product` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: Venue src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:21 — `Venue`'s public constructor takes `name`, `ownerId` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `Venue` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: VenueWorker src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/VenueWorker.cs:9 — `VenueWorker`'s public constructor takes `venueId`, `workerId`, `positionName` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `VenueWorker` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) REDACTED · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:36 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:36-49 | src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/UpdateVenueViewModel.cs:33-46 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/UpdateVenueViewModel.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:33` calls `JsonPropertyName` and `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/UpdateVenueViewModel.cs:31` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/LoyaltyProductGroup/LoyaltyProductGroupGetViewModel.cs:12 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/LoyaltyProductGroup/LoyaltyProductGroupGetViewModel.cs:12-25 | src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/LoyaltyProductGroup/LoyaltyProductGroupViewModel.cs:8-21 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Product/CreateProductViewModel.cs:10 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Product/CreateProductViewModel.cs:10-23 | src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Product/UpdateProductViewModel.cs:10-23 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Products/CreateProductNotification.cs:16 — common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Products/CreateProductNotification.cs:16-29 | common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Products/UpdateProductNotification.cs:13-26 — before extracting anything, compare `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Products/CreateProductNotification.cs` and `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Products/UpdateProductNotification.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 83% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code · Unfinished stub · ×4

Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:10 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:15 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:20 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:25 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Unfinished stub · ×4

Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:10 — `Send` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:15 — `Send` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:20 — `Publish` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:25 — `Publish` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×3

CommentedOutCode src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:46 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/LoyaltyProgram/Startup.cs:62 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/Scoped/ObjectStore.cs:33 — 8 consecutive commented-code lines

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Worker/WorkerViewModel.cs:15 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Worker/WorkerViewModel.cs:15-31 | src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Worker/GetWorkerByIdQueryResult.cs:15-31 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Worker/WorkerViewModel.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Worker/GetWorkerByIdQueryResult.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 85% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/LoyaltyPrograms/CreateLoyaltyProgramNotification.cs:16 — common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/LoyaltyPrograms/CreateLoyaltyProgramNotification.cs:16-32 | common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/LoyaltyPrograms/UpdateLoyaltyProgramNotification.cs:13-29 — before extracting anything, compare `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/LoyaltyPrograms/CreateLoyaltyProgramNotification.cs` and `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/LoyaltyPrograms/UpdateLoyaltyProgramNotification.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 85% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Purchases/BurnPurchaseNotification.cs:10 — common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Purchases/BurnPurchaseNotification.cs:10-26 | common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Purchases/CreatePurchaseNotification.cs:9-25 — before extracting anything, compare `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Purchases/BurnPurchaseNotification.cs` and `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Purchases/CreatePurchaseNotification.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×3

Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts.csproj:1 — Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Contracts: abstractness 1.00, instability 1.00, distance 1.00 — zone of uselessness — abstract and unstable, so it's likely unused.
Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries.csproj:1 — Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.13, distance 0.88 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 7 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries.csproj:1 — 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×3

Low cohesion: LoyaltyVenueAppService (LCOM4 10) src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs:20 — LoyaltyVenueAppService's methods fall into 10 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 10 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: WorkerAppService (LCOM4 7) src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs:28 — WorkerAppService's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: Worker (LCOM4 4) src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/Worker.cs:12 — Worker's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×3

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/PhoneValidator.cs:27 — `catch (Exception)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/Interface/ImageValidator.cs:21 — `catch (Exception)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/Interface/ImageValidator.cs:43 — `catch (Exception)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change-coupling hub · ×2

Change-coupling hub: VenueGetFunction.cs → VenueDeleteFunction.cs, VenuePostFunction.cs, VenuePutFunction.cs src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Venue/VenueGetFunction.cs — `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Venue/VenueGetFunction.cs` changes together with 3 other files — `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Venue/VenueDeleteFunction.cs`, `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Venue/VenuePostFunction.cs`, `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Venue/VenuePutFunction.cs` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 3 separate couplings, not 3 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 3.
Change-coupling hub: VenueGetAllFunction.cs → VenueGetFunction.cs, VenueDeleteFunction.cs, VenuePostFunction.cs, VenuePutFunction.cs src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Venue/VenueGetAllFunction.cs — `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Venue/VenueGetAllFunction.cs` changes together with 4 other files — `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Venue/VenueGetFunction.cs`, `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Venue/VenueDeleteFunction.cs`, `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Venue/VenuePostFunction.cs`, `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Venue/VenuePutFunction.cs` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 4 separate couplings, not 4 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 4.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Orders/GetAllOrdersByVenueIdQueryHandler.cs:47 — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Orders/GetAllOrdersByVenueIdQueryHandler.cs:47-74 | src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Orders/GetOrderByIdQueryHandler.cs:45-72 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Orders/GetAllOrdersByVenueIdQueryHandler.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Orders/GetOrderByIdQueryHandler.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 83% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Orders/GetAllOrdersByVenueIdQueryHandler.cs:47` 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 (28 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/ProductGroups/GetProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs:53 — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/ProductGroups/GetProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs:53-80 | src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/ProductGroups/GetProductGroupsByUserIdQueryHandler.cs:53-80 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/ProductGroups/GetProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs:53` 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 (18 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:12 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:12-29 | src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/UpdateVenueValidator.cs:14-31 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/ProductPhotoValidator.cs:15 — src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/ProductPhotoValidator.cs:15-32 | src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/WorkerPhotoValidator.cs:17-34 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:9 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:9-19 | src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/UpdateVenueViewModel.cs:9-19 | src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Venue/GetVenueByIdQueryResult.cs:11-21 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/UpdateVenueViewModel.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/CreateVenueNotification.cs:23 — common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/CreateVenueNotification.cs:23-33 | common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/UpdateVenueNotification.cs:21-31 | src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Location/GetLocationQueryResult.cs:7-17 — before extracting anything, compare `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/CreateVenueNotification.cs` and `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/UpdateVenueNotification.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 95% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:35 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:35-41 | src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/UpdateVenueValidator.cs:34-40 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Product/ProductImagePatchFunction.cs:57 — src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Product/ProductImagePatchFunction.cs:57-63 | src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueLogo/VenuePutLogoFunction.cs:56-62 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Product/ProductImagePatchFunction.cs:57` 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.

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain · Domain type reads the wall clock · ×2

Domain type reads the wall clock: PurchaseBurnedEventHandler src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/Purchases/PurchaseBurnedEventHandler.cs:23 — `PurchaseBurnedEventHandler` reads `DateTime.Now` inside `Handle`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`.
Domain type reads the wall clock: PurchaseMadeEventHandler src/Loyalty.Application.DomainEvents.Handlers/Purchases/PurchaseMadeEventHandler.cs:22 — `PurchaseMadeEventHandler` reads `DateTime.Now` inside `Handle`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`.

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model · Anemic entity · ×2

Anemic entity: OrderItem src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/OrderItem.cs:9 — `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.
Anemic entity: Purchase src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/Purchase.cs:10 — `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.

ED5 · Idempotency · Non-idempotent mutation · ×2

Non-idempotent mutation: ProductGroups.CreateProductGroupCommandHandler.Handle src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/ProductGroups/CreateProductGroupCommandHandler.cs:22 — `ProductGroups.CreateProductGroupCommandHandler.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.
Non-idempotent mutation: Purchases.BurnPurchaseCommandHandler.Handle src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Purchases/BurnPurchaseCommandHandler.cs:24 — `Purchases.BurnPurchaseCommandHandler.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.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Fake-async · ×2

Fake-async — async method never awaits src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Purchases/GetClientActivePurchasesQueryHandler.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.
Fake-async — async method never awaits src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Read/Ping/LoaderIoFunction.cs:13 — `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.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded · ×2

Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded src/LoyaltyProgram/Storage/OrderChangedNotificationFunction.cs:22 — This method contradicts itself about `data`: line 26 writes `data?.VenueComment`, which says `data` can be null, but line 22 then dereferences it directly as `data.ChangedStatus` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `data` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `data` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side.
Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/LoyaltyProductGroups/ArchiveLoyaltyProductGroupCommandHandler.cs:24 — This method contradicts itself about `request`: line 35 writes `request?.Id`, which says `request` can be null, but line 24 then dereferences it directly as `request.Id` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `request` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `request` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant Type Definition · ×1

Redundant Type Definition: `CommandResult` and `ICommandNotificationResult` have identical property signatures (`Success`, `Message`, `Result`, `OnSuccessNotifications`, `OnFailNotifications`). `ICommandNotificationResult` appears to be an interface that duplicates the concrete `CommandResult` class entirely, rather than abstracting a smaller subset or behavior. — Remove `ICommandNotificationResult` if `CommandResult` is the sole implementation, or refactor `ICommandNotificationResult` to expose only the specific contract needed by consumers, avoiding full duplication of the concrete class's state. (signatures: Loyalty.Domain.Contracts.CommandResult | Loyalty.Domain.Contracts.Interfaces.ICommandNotificationResult)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Naming/Intent Overlap · ×1

Naming/Intent Overlap: `CommandNotificationResult` (class) and `ICommandNotificationResult` (interface) share the exact same shape. The class name suggests it is a result of a command notification process, while the interface name suggests it is a contract for such results. However, since the class implements the interface with no additional behavior or state, the interface adds no value and creates confusion about whether consumers should depend on the interface or the class. — Depend on `CommandResult` (or a simplified interface derived from it) instead of `ICommandNotificationResult`. If `CommandNotificationResult` is a specific wrapper for notifications, ensure the interface reflects only the notification-specific aspects, not the entire command result structure. (signatures: Loyalty.Domain.Contracts.CommandNotificationResult | Loyalty.Domain.Contracts.Interfaces.ICommandNotificationResult)

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1

Change coupling: CreateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs ↔ UpdateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/LoyaltyPrograms/CreateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs:1 — `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/LoyaltyPrograms/CreateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/LoyaltyPrograms/UpdateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `0c257bbf` Fixed lp; `81cf5541` Fixes; `a94715ee` Added programs (at that commit the files were still `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Commands/LoyaltyPrograms/CreateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Commands/LoyaltyPrograms/UpdateLoyaltyProgramCommandHandler.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (59 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (59 lines × 2) common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/CreateVenueNotification.cs:11 — common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/CreateVenueNotification.cs:11-69 | common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/UpdateVenueNotification.cs:9-67 — before extracting anything, compare `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/CreateVenueNotification.cs` and `common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/UpdateVenueNotification.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 95% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/LoyaltyProductGroups/GetLoyaltyProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs:54 — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/LoyaltyProductGroups/GetLoyaltyProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs:54-80 | src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/LoyaltyProductGroups/GetLoyaltyProductGroupsQueryHandler.cs:52-78 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/LoyaltyProductGroups/GetLoyaltyProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs:54` 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 (23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:9 — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs:9-31 | src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/UpdateVenueViewModel.cs:9-31 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/CreateVenueViewModel.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Venue/UpdateVenueViewModel.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Workers/GetWorkerByEmailQueryHandler.cs:57 — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Workers/GetWorkerByEmailQueryHandler.cs:57-77 | src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Workers/GetWorkerByIdQueryHandler.cs:56-76 | src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Workers/GetWorkerByPhoneQueryHandler.cs:56-76 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/Workers/GetWorkerByEmailQueryHandler.cs:57` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18–21 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Notifications/SetupFirebaseTokenNotificationHandler.cs:34 — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Notifications/SetupFirebaseTokenNotificationHandler.cs:34-54 | src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Notifications/UpdateWorkerProfileNotificationHandler.cs:22-39 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Notifications/SetupFirebaseTokenNotificationHandler.cs:34` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `notification` to `SetupFirebaseTokenNotification` in one and `UpdateWorkerProfileNotification` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

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 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueNewImageValidator.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Venues/CreateVenueCommandHandler.cs:49 — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Venues/CreateVenueCommandHandler.cs:49-68 | src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Commands/Venues/UpdateVenueCommandHandler.cs:39-58 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `request` to `CreateVenueCommand` in one and `UpdateVenueCommand` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs:17 — src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs:17-26 | src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs:17-26 | src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueNewImageValidator.cs:17-26 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueNewImageValidator.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Orders/GetOrderByUserIdQueryResult.cs:20 — src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Orders/GetOrderByUserIdQueryResult.cs:20-30 | src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Orders/GetOrderByVenueIdQueryResult.cs:26-36 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Orders/GetOrderByUserIdQueryResult.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/QueryResults/Orders/GetOrderByVenueIdQueryResult.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 85% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs:32 — src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs:32-39 | src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs:28-35 | src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueNewImageValidator.cs:28-35 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs` and `src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueNewImageValidator.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 37 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueImageValidator.cs:28` calls `RuleFor`, `LessThan`, `WithMessage` and `src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/VenueLogoValidator.cs:26` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Admin/VenueApprovePatchFunction.cs:42 — src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Admin/VenueApprovePatchFunction.cs:42-50 | src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/Admin/VenueRejectPatchFunction.cs:42-50 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, 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:42` 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/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:57 — src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:57-64 | src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueLogo/VenueCreateLogoFunction.cs:57-64 — 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:57` 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 (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs:108 — src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs:108-112 | src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs:149-153 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×1

End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.1 test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/LoyaltyProgram.Tests.csproj:4 — test/LoyaltyProgram.Tests/LoyaltyProgram.Tests.csproj declares .NET netcoreapp3.1 as this project's target framework, and .NET Core 3.1 LTS, support ended 2022-12-13. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2022-12-13 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.

D5 · Coupling · Unstable project LoyaltyProgram · ×1

Unstable project LoyaltyProgram src/LoyaltyProgram/LoyaltyProgram.csproj:1 — LoyaltyProgram has instability 1.00 with 0 dependents.

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

Unstable project Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC/Loyalty.Infrastructure.IoC.csproj:1 — 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 src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands.csproj:1 — Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers.Commands has instability 0.86 with 1 dependents.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Skeleton type · ×1

Skeleton type — most members are unfinished src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/EmptyMediator.cs:8 — `EmptyMediator` has 4 unfinished members out of 4 declared members (methods, properties, indexers and events, whether or not each carries a body) — a scaffolded type that was never implemented.

SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1

NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.

X1 · Async correctness · Blocking `FileStream.Read` inside an `async` method · ×1

Blocking `FileStream.Read` inside an `async` method src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueImageAppService.cs:94 — `FileStream.Read` blocks the thread on I/O while `FileStream.ReadAsync` exists to wait without one — inside a method that is already `async`, await the twin.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness · Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it · ×1

Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/Scoped/DbContextScopedExtensions.cs:85 — `dbContext` is a `DbContextScoped`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 85). Every use of it in `ContextFactory` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var dbContext = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.

X20 · Mistyped argument guard · Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves · ×1

Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/CodeAppService.cs:30 — The guard on line 28 rejects `code` and line 30 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(code)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `code`, and on that path `code` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.

Minor — 66 finding(s)

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids · Primitive id on a domain type · ×28

Primitive id on a domain type: LoyaltyProductGroup.LoyaltyProgramId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProductGroup.cs:49 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: LoyaltyProductGroup.ProductGroupId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProductGroup.cs:60 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: LoyaltyProductGroup.TenantId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProductGroup.cs:68 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: LoyaltyProgram.VenueId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProgram.cs:58 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: LoyaltyProgram.TenantId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/LoyaltyPrograms/LoyaltyProgram.cs:67 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Order.TenantId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/Order.cs:28 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Order.VenueId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/Order.cs:32 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: OrderItem.TenantId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/OrderItem.cs:31 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: OrderItem.ProductId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/OrderItem.cs:35 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: OrderItem.OrderId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/OrderItem.cs:42 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: ProductGroup.VenueId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:28 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: ProductGroup.TenantId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:42 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Product.ProductGroupId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs:78 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Product.VenueId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs:80 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Product.TenantId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs:82 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Purchase.LoyaltyProductGroupId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/Purchase.cs:79 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Purchase.VenueId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/Purchase.cs:82 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Purchase.ProductId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/Purchase.cs:85 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Purchase.UserId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/Purchase.cs:87 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Purchase.TenantId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Purchases/Purchase.cs:91 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Venue.OwnerId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:51 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Venue.ParentId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:54 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: Venue.TenantId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:78 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: VenueWorker.VenueId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/VenueWorker.cs:21 — `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.
Primitive id on a domain type: VenueWorker.WorkerId src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Workers/VenueWorker.cs:23 — `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.
+ 3 more in this group — see findings.md.

X4 · Structured logging · Interpolated log message defeats structured logging · ×10

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:99 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenuePutImageFunction.cs:84 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) 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.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueLogo/VenueCreateLogoFunction.cs:90 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/LoyaltyProgram/SendGrid/SendEmailConfirmationLinkFunction.cs:26 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) 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.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/LoyaltyProgram/SendGrid/SendEmailConfirmationLinkFunction.cs:45 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/LoyaltyProgram/SendGrid/SendEmailConfirmationLinkFunction.cs:49 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) 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.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/LoyaltyProgram/ServiceBus/ClientEventsFunction.cs:49 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging REDACTED:77 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) 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.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/LoyaltyProgram/Timer/SelfWarmer.cs:23 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging REDACTED:45 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) 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.

DM5 · Encapsulated state · Mutable entity · ×5

Mutable entity: Order src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/Order.cs:17 — `Order` exposes publicly writable state (Id).
Mutable entity: OrderItem src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Orders/OrderItem.cs:9 — `OrderItem` exposes publicly writable state (Id).
Mutable entity: ProductGroup src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/ProductGroups/ProductGroup.cs:11 — `ProductGroup` exposes publicly writable state (OwnerVenue).
Mutable entity: Venue src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Venues/Venue.cs:18 — `Venue` exposes publicly writable state (Images, LoyaltyPrograms, ProductGroups).
Mutable entity: AuditableEntity src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Base/AuditableEntity.cs:8 — `AuditableEntity` exposes publicly writable state (CreatedBy, ModifiedBy, Modified, Created).

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×5

README/code drift docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md:203 — docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md:208 — docs/articles/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md:213 — docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.VenueId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md:218 — docs/articles/medium/05-multitenancy-query-filters.md names the project `LoyaltyProgram.TenantId`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/articles/medium/README.md:37 — docs/articles/medium/README.md names `docs/images/`, but no file or folder `docs/images` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×4

Duplicated predicate src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs:108 — `!String.IsNullOrEmpty(logo) && !String.IsNullOrEmpty(imageStorageSettings.Value.CDN) && !String.IsNullOrEmpty(imageStorageSettings.Value.Sto…` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/LoyaltyVenueAppService.cs, src/Loyalty.Application.Venue/WorkerAppService.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Commands/User/UpdateUserEmailCommandHandler.cs:38 — `!String.IsNullOrEmpty(request.NewEmail) && !request.IsEmailVerified` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Firebase.Handlers/Commands/User/UpdateUserEmailCommandHandler.cs, REDACTED. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/ProductGroups/GetProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs:76 — `groupEntry.IsAvailableForOrder && (product?.IsAvailableForOrder ?? false)` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/ProductGroups/GetProductGroupByIdQueryHandler.cs, src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.Handlers/Queries/ProductGroups/GetProductGroupsByUserIdQueryHandler.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs:40 — `x.Day >= 0 && x.Day < 7 && x.To <= 24 * 60` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/CreateVenueValidator.cs, src/Loyalty.Application.ViewModels/Validators/Venue/UpdateVenueValidator.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×3

Commented-out code src/Loyalty.Infrastructure.DataAccess/Context/Scoped/ObjectStore.cs:37 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/LoyaltyProgram/Http/Write/VenueImages/VenueCreateImageFunction.cs:58 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/LoyaltyProgram/Startup.cs:67 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).

C3 · Audit Trail · Partial audit-trail evidence · ×1

Partial audit-trail evidence — 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.

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.

D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1

redundant comment src/Loyalty.Core.Entities/Aggregates/Products/Product.cs:15 — "public constructor available to developer to create a new book" — delete - restates 'public constructor'

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, 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.

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 68/68 types (100%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

No changelog — 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.)

PF1 · Benchmark discipline · No performance benchmarks · ×1

No performance benchmarks — No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

PF2 · Allocation hygiene · No allocation-aware APIs detected · ×1

No allocation-aware APIs detected — No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this code sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it creates — a bonus, not a requirement.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1

Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 114/226 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.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere · ×1

Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 0/28 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.

X7 · Silent fallback defaults · Silent fallback default in catch · ×1

Silent fallback default in catch src/Loyalty.Application.Storage.Dto/Validators/Interface/ImageValidator.cs:43 — `ValidateWidthAndHeight` swallows every exception and sets `isValid = false;` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the failure or let validation throw.

Minor — 2 finding(s)

D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1

Mock framework: Moq — LoyaltyProgram.Tests references Moq.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: Loyalty.Common.Shared src/Loyalty.Common.Shared/Loyalty.Common.Shared.csproj:1 — 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.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-d0b3561aa2f9444caeb66cd2ec21b134/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-d0b3561aa2f9444caeb66cd2ec21b134/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	0	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list src/LoyaltyProgram.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	0	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/gdpr.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	6	artifacts/raw/semgrep-gdpr.json
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	none (no readable dependency manifest)	—	none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).	0	—

Run 01a160f7-68f3-70a3-b274-3d47dead27c7 · 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 — 55 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, from the C# syntax tree, with a deliberately specific identifier classifier — the same one the C1–C5 compliance cards use to decide whether personal data is present, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip. Two caveats stated rather than glossed: those cards additionally require corroboration (a persistence/account signal, or two distinct PII categories) that this inventory deliberately does not, so it lists more than they gate on; and D32 Data Compliance shares nothing with it — that dimension is a separate semgrep ruleset for personal data leaking into logs, URLs and browser storage, and a clean D32 result says nothing about this list. Informational — it feeds no score.

Phone — 21 field(s)

CreateVenueNotification.Phones common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/CreateVenueNotification.cs:39
UpdateVenueNotification.Phones common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Venue/UpdateVenueNotification.cs:37
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

Name — 18 field(s)

SetupFirebaseTokenNotification.Surname common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Workers/SetupFirebaseTokenNotification.cs:18
UpdateWorkerProfileNotification.LastName common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Workers/UpdateWorkerProfileNotification.cs:15
UpdatedWorkerNotification.LastName common/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Notifications/Workers/UpdatedWorkerNotification.cs:17
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

Email — 16 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
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.NewEmail src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Commands/User/UpdateUserEmailCommand.cs:14
GetVerificationLinkQuery.NewEmail src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/Queries/GetVerificationLinkQuery.cs:14
GetCurrentUserQueryResult.Email src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/QueryResults/GetCurrentUserQueryResult.cs:5
GetVerificationLinkQueryResult.Email src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Firebase.Queries/QueryResults/GetVerificationLinkQueryResult.cs:5
UpdateEmailCommand.Email src/Loyalty.Domain.Handlers.Queries/Commands/UserProfile/UpdateEmailCommand.cs:10
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

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 52% · Adequate · gated by X5 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 84% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 50% · Adequate · gated by M4 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 72% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Security · 76% · Strong ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 54% · Adequate · gated by DM1, DM2 ·

At a glance — Event-Driven · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Performance · 70% · Strong ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

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