sanjyotagureddy/aspnetrun-microservices

Executive summary

sanjyotagureddy/aspnetrun-microservices scores 54 out of 100 and is rated Provisional, while six of its eight lenses score higher still: Domain Modelling at 81, Architecture at 78, Code Health at 77, Performance at 63, Maturity at 59, and Production Readiness at 50. The score is provisional because the code didn't build, so the ratings may change once it does.

The score is lower than those six because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 49 and is rated Weak. The project has no secure data protection and no proper access controls, so its Data Protection and Access Controls dimensions both score 3 out of 10, and until those reach 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. Resolving the vulnerable dependency, removing secrets from history, and encrypting sensitive data are therefore the first actions, and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 54 to about 58.

Seventeen findings are critical: six high secrets in the code's history, four mutable action tags in static analysis, three high CVEs in dependencies, two namespace dependency cycles, one vulnerable dependency, and one empty catch block. The vulnerable dependency should be resolved, the secrets should be removed from history, and the mutable action tags should be fixed.

Watchdog couldn't measure runtime accessibility because the Aspire AppHost did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time, so that dimension is left out of the score. The product code is 10,608 lines, which would take an estimated 0.3 person-years, around €45,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 77 Adequate, capped by Solution Shape Architecture 78 Strong Maturity 59 Adequate Production Readiness 50 Adequate, capped by Outbound HTTP resilience Security and Compliance 49 Weak, capped by Static Analysis (SAST), Data Protection and Access Controls Domain Modelling 81 Adequate, capped by Strongly-typed ids Event-Driven 100 ★ Exemplary Performance 63 Adequate

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.

Security and Compliance 49 · counts for 45%Production Readiness 50 · counts for 25%Maturity 59 · counts for 14%Performance 63 · counts for 8%Code Health 77 · counts for 4%Architecture 78 · counts for 2%Domain Modelling 81 · counts for 1%Event-Driven 100 · counts for 1%

If Security and Compliance rose from 49 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 54 to about 58.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Business logic 25%Supporting code 43%Tests 32%

Rebuild cost: about €45,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€15,000 to €75,000, for 244 to 787 hours of work, about 0.3 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Very 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 54. 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: 10,608 lines of product code, of which 39% is declarations and boilerplate, 24% straight logic and 37% logic with branches
Comment lines	The estimate prices 10,531 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 10,608 lines but aren't priced as work.

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 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 6 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 3 points · Low effort · Secrets (history)

Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault.

Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).

Raises the score by about 3 points · Medium effort · Data Protection

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.

If you do one thing first · First action

Fix the build. The code didn't build, so the dimensions that need a working build were measured on an incomplete picture of the code, and every grade in this report is provisional. Once the build works, the next survey gives a final score. The compiler's first errors: CS1729: 'BasketCheckoutIntegrationEventHandler' does not contain a constructor that takes 3 arguments

Based on: Solution Shape

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €45,000 to build again, about 0.3 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 49 (Weak). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Security and Compliance grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Security and Compliance actions in Top priorities.

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.

75 modules, with 119 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 8 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 35 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 Cart.Api.Domain	2 Common.SharedKernel.Abstractions.Events	3 Common.SharedKernel.Abstractions.IntegrationEvents	4 Common.SharedKernel.Logging	5 Common.SharedKernel.Observability.Context	6 Common.SharedKernel.Results	7 Common.SharedKernel.Web	8 Discount.Grpc.Domain	9 Inventory.Api.Contracts	10 Order.Api.Domain	11 Products.Api.Contracts	12 Cart.Api.Data	15 Common.SharedKernel.Abstractions.Entities	16 Common.SharedKernel.Messaging	23 Common.SharedKernel.Abstractions.Auditing	24 Common.SharedKernel.Messaging.Outbox	25 Inventory.Api.Domain	26 Inventory.Api.Infrastructure.Outbox	27 Products.Api.Domain	28 Products.Api.Infrastructure.Outbox	29 Inventory.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence	30 Products.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence	31 Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.Initialize	32 Products.Api.Features.Products.Update	33 Inventory.Api.Infrastructure	34 Products.Api.Infrastructure	35 Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.GetBatch	37 Products.Api.Features.Products.Create
1 Cart.Api.Domain
2 Common.SharedKernel.Abstractions.Events
3 Common.SharedKernel.Abstractions.IntegrationEvents
4 Common.SharedKernel.Logging
5 Common.SharedKernel.Observability.Context
6 Common.SharedKernel.Results
7 Common.SharedKernel.Web
8 Discount.Grpc.Domain
9 Inventory.Api.Contracts
10 Order.Api.Domain
11 Products.Api.Contracts
12 Cart.Api.Data	2
13 Cart.Api.Events			1
14 Cart.Api.Observability				6	2
15 Common.SharedKernel.Abstractions.Entities		1
16 Common.SharedKernel.Messaging				3
17 Discount.Grpc.Data								2
18 Discount.Grpc.Observability				6	2
19 Order.Api.Data										2
20 Cart.Api.Features.Cart.Checkout												1		1
21 Cart.Api.Features.Cart.GetCart	1											1
22 Cart.Api.Features.Cart.UpdateCart	2											1
23 Common.SharedKernel.Abstractions.Auditing													1
24 Common.SharedKernel.Messaging.Outbox				1										2
25 Inventory.Api.Domain															1
26 Inventory.Api.Infrastructure.Outbox		2		1	2									2		6
27 Products.Api.Domain															1
28 Products.Api.Infrastructure.Outbox		2		1	2									2		6
29 Inventory.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence									1								3								1
30 Products.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence																			3							3
31 Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.Initialize				1		1	1		1									1			1				1
32 Products.Api.Features.Products.Update				1		1	1				2									1		1				2
33 Inventory.Api.Infrastructure				1					2					1			1						2				1
34 Products.Api.Infrastructure				1							3			1					4					1				1
35 Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.GetBatch						1	1		2																1
36 Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.GetByProductId						1	1		1																1
37 Products.Api.Features.Products.Create				1		1	1				2									1		1				2
38 Products.Api.Features.Products.Delete				1		1	1													1		1				1
39 Products.Api.Features.Products.Get						1	1				2															2
40 Products.Api.Features.Products.GetById						1	1				1															2

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 77% · Adequate · gated by D18 ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.5 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 8.7 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.6 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.4 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 8.7 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 9.6 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 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 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.9

The Bad

X1 · Repo Async correctness 6.3 X3 · Repo Exception handling 6.2

The Ugly

D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 3.0

At a glance — Architecture · 78% · Strong ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D7 · .NET / C# Architectural Integrity 10.0 D23 · .NET / C# Boundary Type-Coupling 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.4 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 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 AX7 · Repo Slice cohesion 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Bad

AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 6.8

The Ugly

AX10 · Repo Code composition 4.0

At a glance — Maturity · 59% · Adequate ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 8.5 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 9.0 D25 · .NET / C# ADR Conformance 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.2 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0

The Ugly

D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 3.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 4.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 4.0

At a glance — Readiness · 50% · Adequate · gated by P7 ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.8 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P2 · Repo Observability 9.5

The Bad

D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 5.1 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 49% · Weak · gated by D29, C1, C2 ·

The Good

D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.1 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 8.9 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 C4 · Repo Data Retention 7.5 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 8.0 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 Ugly

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 4.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 3.9 C1 · Repo Data Protection 3.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 3.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 81% · Adequate · gated by DM2 ·

The Good

DM10 · Repo One transaction, one aggregate 10.0 DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 10.0 DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 10.0 DM3 · Repo Integration-event coupling 10.0 DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 9.5 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 10.0

The Ugly

DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 3.0

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

The Good

ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED2 · Repo Event/command shape 10.0 ED3 · Repo Event naming 9.7 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 63% · Adequate ·

The Good

PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 7.2

The Bad

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 6.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2025 — Injection	22	High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	15	Medium
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	7	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	3	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by resolving the single vulnerable dependency and removing six high-severity secrets from configuration and history files. Next, encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys securely, while enforcing strict authorization by applying guard methods or attributes to every handler. Finally, address the sixteen missing or broken authorization findings identified in static analysis, prioritizing the cart, order, and inventory endpoint files.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+4.2 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 6 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.	+2.9 pts	Low	Secrets (history)
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).	+3.3 pts	Medium	Data Protection
Enforce authorization at every handler — call the guard method (throw-on-violation) from each one, or adopt [Authorize] so protected-by-default is demonstrable.	+3.3 pts	Medium	Access Controls
Resolve the 16 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (4), REDACTED.	+3.0 pts	Medium	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED.	+1.3 pts	Low	Dependency Vulnerabilities
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or a Polly policy and an explicit timeout) to each client registration flagged here, so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.	+2.1 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.	+1.5 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 65 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 2% slop · 49% mixed · 49% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Secrets (history): High secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.2	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.2	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.2	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.2	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.2	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs	6.9	Mixed	Explicit Debt: Dead code: LogApplication
src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync (cyclomatic 22)
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): High secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): High secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): High secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: Dead code: LogTrace
src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel/Observability/Context/AppCallContextMiddlewareExtensions.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: Dead code: UseAppCallContext
src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Infrastructure/ProductMappings.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: Dead code: ToCreatedIntegrationEvent

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 — 17

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 — 105

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 — 101

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

Could not be resolved — 4

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. 93 of 100 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 7 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 — 100 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D20D21D23D24D25D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D39D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX7AX8AX9C1C2C4DM10DM11DM12DM2DM3DM4DM5DM6DM8DM9ED1ED2ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6P7PF1PF2PF3S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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, 158 of 223 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 · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ 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 01a16238-5657-7c25-b693-21ebb28c2105.

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.

D11 Test Reliability — 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. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
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 140 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.
D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContext.cs`, `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs`, `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs`, `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContext.cs`, `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs`, … (+74 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — 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. Render strategy: boot via AspireAppHost (src/aspire/aspnetrun-microservices.AppHost/aspnetrun-microservices.AppHost.csproj). the Aspire AppHost did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time (or only the dashboard) — no runtime evidence.
P1 CI/CD gates — 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. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.

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.
D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. 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.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
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.
D25 ADR Conformance: ADR conformance is the LLM-scored fraction of sampled code that follows recorded decisions — it checks the decisions that were written down and the slices it sampled, not unrecorded rules or the whole tree.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
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 REDACTED (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.
C4 Data Retention: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — its real-world effectiveness, exercised only at runtime, is outside a static scan.
DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (7): D19, D20, D21, D24, D25, 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 Complexity9.5 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync at 22. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being MessageContractCompatibility.IsCompatible at 17 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Compatibility/MessageContractCompatibility.cs (MessageContractCompatibility.IsCompatible at 17). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync (cyclomatic 22)src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:17

What to do

Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync (cyclomatic 22). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.5 to about 10.0/10.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync at 34.

RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync (cognitive 34)src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:17

DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.Traverse (cognitive 24)src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs:81

MessagingConfigurationValidationHostedService.Validate (cognitive 21)src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/DependencyInjection/MessagingConfigurationValidationHostedService.cs:98

OutboxPublisherBase.ExecuteAsync (cognitive 19)src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Outbox/OutboxPublisherBase.cs:23

LoggingConfiguration.Validate (cognitive 16)src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/DependencyInjection/LoggingBuilder.cs:240

What to do

Bring the 5 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync (cognitive 34), DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.Traverse (cognitive 24), MessagingConfigurationValidationHostedService.Validate (cognitive 21). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 5 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 8.7 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.6 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

MethodTooLong: RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsyncsrc/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:17

What to do

Resolve the 1 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Stronggated by 19 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

16 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:24

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens)src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:22

Duplicated block (45 lines × 2)src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/GlobalExceptionHandler.cs:13

Duplicated block (29 lines × 2)src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:106

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Events/ProductCreatedIntegrationEvent.cs:69

+ 13 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs, Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AppCallContextMiddleware.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (45 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with GlobalExceptionHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 40 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D7 · Architectural Integrity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the code respects its intended layering / architecture rules.

Method: Enforcement rung (Prevented/Verified/Documented) per checkable ADR via Roslyn, plus dependency cycles via the engine shared with D5/AX3. Deterministic, exact.

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

All 3 mechanizable ADR(s) are enforced: 3 by analyzers, 0 by tests. Cycles found: 0.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d7_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

182 test methods: 168 unit, 14 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality9.8 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 2 zero-assertion, 9 mock references across 182 tests.

No assertions: LoggingHostedService_ShouldStartAndStop · ×2tests/UnitTests/Common.SharedKernel.Logging.UnitTests/AdvancedCoverageTests.cs:100

Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×9

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene5.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

37 outdated, 1 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: MessagePack

Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.Kafka · ×37

What to do

Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 250 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 42 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 208 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 1 serious finding✓ 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

Top hotspots: src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs (2×22=44)

Hotspot: src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cssrc/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:17

What to do

Resolve the 1 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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 Debt8.7 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ 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 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 deducted debt markers + 16 dead symbols across 10608 LoC in the .NET projects (0.7/KLoC) → score 8.7.

EmptyCatchBlocksrc/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Features/Cart/UpdateCart/UpdateCartCommand.cs:49

Dead code: ToReadOnlyDictionary · ×16src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Abstractions/LogEnrichmentContext.cs:54

CoverageExclusion · ×6src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/ServiceRegistration.cs:12

CommentedOutCodesrc/aspire/aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults/Extensions.cs:93

What to do

Resolve the 1 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with UpdateCartCommand.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 16 Dead code finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs (3), ILogger.cs (2), AppCallContextMiddlewareExtensions.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 CoverageExclusion finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ServiceRegistration.cs (2), EndpointRegistrationExtensions.cs, EndpointScopeAttribute.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 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 Shape3.0 / 10Weak✓ 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 3.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

23 projects, 365 source files, 15490 hand-written lines of code (10608 production / 4882 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), 40 inter-project edges (build failed).

Build failed

What to do

Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityWeak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The project's READMEs are thin at best and the architecture/design docs form a coherent checklist that is itself clipped mid-sentence. The three README files describe only the directories they live in (the single one is an API surface; the two others are internal shared kernels) without any overview of what the project does, installation, or usage, while the six architecture/Docs markdown files present a detailed implementation progress tracking checklist for messaging, partitioning, and versioning. The XML-doc coverage is trivial at 0% across all packages (no documentation exists), so the absence of any documentation is the dominant defect. (8 of 9 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 2 evaluation groups failed.)

XML-doc coverage: aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults · ×10src/aspire/aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults/aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults.csproj

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 3.0/10. — The project's READMEs are thin at best and the architecture/design docs form a coherent checklist that is itself clipped mid-sentence. The three README files describe only the directories they live in (the single one is an API surface; the two others are internal shared kernels) without any overview of what the project does, installation, or usage, while the six architecture/Docs markdown files present a detailed implementation progress tracking checklist for messaging, partitioning, and versioning. The XML-doc coverage is trivial at 0% across all packages (no documentation exists), so the absence of any documentation is the dominant defect. (8 of 9 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 2 evaluation groups failed.)

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Evaluated 4 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 8.5/10 (consistently complete and clear). 1 flagged with a specific gap.

No context/problem framing or consequences/trade-offs for each checklist itemsrc/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0002-Implementation-Checklist.md

ADR has no Decision sectionsrc/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md:1detected by adr-integrity

ADR Decision section is emptysrc/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0002-recursive-payload-protection-and-storage.md:27detected by adr-integrity

What to do

Resolve the 1 No context/problem framing or consequences/trade-offs for each checklist… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with ADR-0002-Implementation-Checklist.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ADR has no Decision section finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 ADR Decision section is empty finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with ADR-0002-recursive-payload-protection-and-storage.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming 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?

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.

Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.

Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.

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

No domain types are scored-flagged across 8 context boundaries; 1 contract project(s) carry advisory strong-ID notes.

Inventory: 1 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d23_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

32 valuable / 0 redundant across 72 sampled comments.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D25 · ADR ConformanceExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the code actually follows the decisions recorded in the project's ADRs.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature against ADRs plus a deterministic structural code summary; findings linked to repo-rooted ADR paths for traceability. Advisory.

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

1 conform / 0 violate across 4 ADRs.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d25_recommendation.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 23 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

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

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

74 % of calls cross a namespace and 5 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Pass-through layersrc/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/DependencyInjection/Logger.cs:149

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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 4.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

6 finding(s): 0 critical, 6 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 6 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)3.9 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

22 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 18 medium, 0 low. 4 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 79 file(s) — `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContext.cs` (lines 5–12, line 12, line 13), `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs` (line 8, line 9), `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs` (lines 6–27, lines 40–41), `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContext.cs` (lines 5–12, line 12, line 13), `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs` (line 8, line 9), … (+74 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 75 of those file(s) — `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContext.cs`, `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs`, `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs`, `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContext.cs`, `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs`, … (+70 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them. In 3 of those file(s) — `src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Exceptions/MessagingConfigurationException.cs`, `src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Exceptions/MessagingException.cs`, `src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel/Exceptions/ConflictException.cs` — the break is at a TYPE DECLARATION (a C# primary constructor semgrep's grammar cannot parse), so the loss is wider than the named lines: rules scoped to that type see no type to scope to and are blind over its whole body, while rules matching statements keep working there. Absence of a type-scoped finding in those types is not evidence of anything.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 16 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (4), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 4 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.1 / 10Adequategated by 3 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

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

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (REDACTED/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

15 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 10 medium, 5 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 10 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_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 49 of the 290 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 Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

1 of 848 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetsrc/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/DependencyInjection/LoggingBuilder.cs:142

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 23 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.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 composition4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons6.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

`MessagingInstrumentation` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_consumerLag; e.g. `_consumerLag` at line 42). — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Observability/MessagingInstrumentation.cs:6

What to do

Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.

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 Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.GetBatch ↔ Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.Initialize ↔ Inventory.Api.Infrastructure ↔ Inventory.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.GetBatch → Inventory.Api.Infrastructure (Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.GetBatch.GetInventoryBatchQueryHandler → Inventory.Api.Infrastructure.IInventoryStore, 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/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Features/Inventory/GetBatch/GetInventoryBatchQueryHandler.cs:3
The namespaces Products.Api.Features.Products.Create ↔ Products.Api.Features.Products.Update ↔ Products.Api.Infrastructure ↔ Products.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Products.Api.Features.Products.Create → Products.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence (Products.Api.Features.Products.Create.CreateProductCommandHandler → Products.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence.IProductTransactionExecutor, 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/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Create/CreateProductCommandHandler.cs:9

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?

AX7 · Slice cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.

Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.

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?

C1 · Data Protection3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

C2 · Access Controls3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Authorization machinery exists but no [Authorize] usage and no imperative guard calls were found at handlers.

What to do

Enforce authorization at every handler — call the guard method (throw-on-violation) from each one, or adopt [Authorize] so protected-by-default is demonstrable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C4 · Data Retention7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether data has a defined lifetime — retention periods, TTLs, cleanup jobs (storage limitation).

Method: Roslyn scan: retention/TTL configuration presence in schema; CascadeDelete detected but not scored as retention control. Deterministic, gated by PII presence.

A retention mechanism is present, but the data-lifecycle is not yet complete — missing: a scheduled purge / cleanup job (PurgeOlderThan / CleanupJob).

What to do

Complete the data-lifecycle story: an expiry limit (a declared maximum age for the stored data — a retention-age setting, or a store-level TTL where your storage offers one), a scheduled purge/cleanup job that enforces it, and a documented retention period covering the personal data.

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 state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

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.

`InventoryItem.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Domain/InventoryItem.cs:16
`InventoryInitializedDomainEvent.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Domain/Events/InventoryDomainEvents.cs:7
`ProductCreatedDomainEvent.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Domain/Events/ProductDomainEvents.cs:7
`ProductUpdatedDomainEvent.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Domain/Events/ProductDomainEvents.cs:25
`ProductDeletedDomainEvent.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Domain/Events/ProductDomainEvents.cs:44

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?

DM3 · Integration-event coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether cross-context integration events stay loosely coupled — no producer-owned enums/domain types leaking to consumers. Shared-kernel/contracts types are allowed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): integration-event properties scanned for producer-domain type/enum leaks versus primitives and shared-kernel types. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model10.0 / 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities9.5 / 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.

The parameters [brand, category, currency, isactive, name, price, productid, sku, stockquantity] travel together across 4 signatures and were confirmed as a coherent concept by the model — that's a missing value object. Extracting them into one type (e.g. `Address`, `Money`, `Coordinate`) removes repetition, prevents argument-order mistakes, and gives the concept a home for its rules. — src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Domain/Events/ProductDomainEvents.cs:5

What to do

Extract recurring primitive parameter clusters into value objects so the concept (and its rules) lives in one place.

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?

ED2 · Event/command shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether commands have a single handler (one owner of the decision) and fan-out is modelled with events.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): command-shaped messages identified by convention; handler count per command checked for the exactly-one rule. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED3 · Event naming9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge — low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

`BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Events/BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.cs:6

What to do

Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.

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 · Idempotency10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a README to the 21 of 23 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.8 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation4.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

What to do

Grow the ADR log (currently 4) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Only 8/23 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy4.0 / 10Weak◐ 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.

src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md documents the environment variable `PRODUCT_CREATION_FAILED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. 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. — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md:230
src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md documents the environment variable `ORDER_PAYMENT_TIMEOUT`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. 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. — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md:231
src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md documents the environment variable `USER_AUTHENTICATION_FAILED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. 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. — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md:232

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md documents the environment variable `PRODUCT_CREATION_FAILED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md documents the environment variable `ORDER_PAYMENT_TIMEOUT`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md documents the environment variable `USER_AUTHENTICATION_FAILED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 9/11 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 11, 7 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release 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?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

`new()` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default). — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/ElasticsearchPayloadStore.cs:9
`new HttpClient()` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default). — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Sinks/ElasticsearchLogSink.cs:12

What to do

Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or a Polly policy and an explicit timeout) to each client registration flagged here, so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 hygiene7.2 / 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.

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 34 use(s) across 13,717 production line(s) (~2.5/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code 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.

7 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one). (×7) — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:14, src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:17, src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:20, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves. (×6) — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Program.cs:12, src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Program.cs:21, src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Program.cs:14, …

What to do

Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy first, then Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options and a frame policy) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×7) — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:14, src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:17, src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:20, …

What to do

Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)

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 correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

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 propagation9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 108/115 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 — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. (×6) — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:338, src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:382, src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Services/DiscountService.cs:19, …
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. — src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Data/DiscountDbInitializer.cs:8

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

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 handling6.2 / 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` 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. — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:414
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Features/Cart/UpdateCart/UpdateCartCommand.cs:49

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 logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

~0.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 9 suppression(s) across the 54458 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	77%	Adequate — gated by D18	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	78%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	59%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.
Readiness	50%	Adequate — gated by P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	49%	Weak — gated by D29, C1, C2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	81%	Adequate — gated by DM2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	63%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.

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.

P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 4 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 3 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.

C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
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.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 28 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.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the Aspire AppHost did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time (or only the dashboard) — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 79 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
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.
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).
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — no aggregates detected — aggregate-boundary check not applicable
DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
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
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 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 — 17 finding(s)

D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×6

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Namespace dependency cycle src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Features/Inventory/GetBatch/GetInventoryBatchQueryHandler.cs:3 — The namespaces Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.GetBatch ↔ Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.Initialize ↔ Inventory.Api.Infrastructure ↔ Inventory.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.GetBatch → Inventory.Api.Infrastructure (Inventory.Api.Features.Inventory.GetBatch.GetInventoryBatchQueryHandler → Inventory.Api.Infrastructure.IInventoryStore, 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/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Create/CreateProductCommandHandler.cs:9 — The namespaces Products.Api.Features.Products.Create ↔ Products.Api.Features.Products.Update ↔ Products.Api.Infrastructure ↔ Products.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Products.Api.Features.Products.Create → Products.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence (Products.Api.Features.Products.Create.CreateProductCommandHandler → Products.Api.Infrastructure.Persistence.IProductTransactionExecutor, 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.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×1

Vulnerable: MessagePack — REDACTED — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×1

EmptyCatchBlock src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Features/Cart/UpdateCart/UpdateCartCommand.cs:49 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.

Serious — 105 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×16

Dead code: ToReadOnlyDictionary src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Abstractions/LogEnrichmentContext.cs:54 — Method ToReadOnlyDictionary — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Logging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: LogTypeSemantics src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Abstractions/LogTypeSemantics.cs:3 — NamedType LogTypeSemantics — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Logging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: LogTrace src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:13 — Method LogTrace — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Logging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: LogApi src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:16 — Method LogApi — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Logging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: AddMasker src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILoggingBuilder.cs:23 — Method AddMasker — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Logging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: LogApplication src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:17 — Method LogApplication — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Logging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: LogEvent src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:20 — Method LogEvent — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Logging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: LogAudit src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:23 — Method LogAudit — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Logging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: UnsubscribeAsync src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Abstractions/IMessageConsumer.cs:10 — Method UnsubscribeAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Messaging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: CheckHealthAsync src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Abstractions/IMessagingProvider.cs:17 — Method CheckHealthAsync — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Messaging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: SetKafkaPartition src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Kafka/Metadata/KafkaMessageMetadataExtensions.cs:7 — Method SetKafkaPartition — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Messaging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: NullMessageConsumer src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Providers/NullMessageConsumer.cs:3 — NamedType NullMessageConsumer — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel.Messaging, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: UseAppCallContext src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel/Observability/Context/AppCallContextMiddlewareExtensions.cs:11 — Method UseAppCallContext — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: UseAppCallContext src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel/Observability/Context/AppCallContextMiddlewareExtensions.cs:18 — Method UseAppCallContext — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Common.SharedKernel, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: ToCreatedIntegrationEvent src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Infrastructure/ProductMappings.cs:65 — Method ToCreatedIntegrationEvent — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Products.Api, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: ToUpdatedIntegrationEvent src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Infrastructure/ProductMappings.cs:81 — Method ToUpdatedIntegrationEvent — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Products.Api, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×10

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking · ×8

Sync-over-async blocking — 7 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:14 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:17 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:20 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:18 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:21 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:24 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:27 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).

X1 · Async correctness · Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) · ×7

Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:14 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:17 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/ILogger.cs:20 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:18 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:21 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:24 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Contracts/LoggerDestinationExtensions.cs:27 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.

D17 · Explicit Debt · CoverageExclusion · ×6

CoverageExclusion src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/ServiceRegistration.cs:12 — class ServiceRegistration — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Infrastructure/ServiceRegistration.cs:13 — class ServiceRegistration — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel/Web/EndpointRegistrationExtensions.cs:12 — class EndpointRegistrationExtensions — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel/Web/EndpointScopeAttribute.cs:3 — class EndpointScopeAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel/Web/EndpointScopeResolver.cs:3 — class EndpointScopeResolver — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel/Web/SwaggerExtensions.cs:11 — class SwaggerExtensions — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×2

No assertions: LoggingHostedService_ShouldStartAndStop tests/UnitTests/Common.SharedKernel.Logging.UnitTests/AdvancedCoverageTests.cs:100 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: ElasticsearchLogSink_WriteBatchAsync_WithEmptyEntries_ShouldReturn tests/UnitTests/Common.SharedKernel.Logging.UnitTests/SinksAndFormatterTests.cs:70 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2

Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:24 — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:24-41 | src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/CartRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:24-41 | src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Observability/DiscountRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:24-41 | src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Observability/InventoryRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:24-41 | src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Observability/OrderRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:24-41 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Observability/ProductsRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:24-41 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Program.cs:11 — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Program.cs:11-49 | src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Program.cs:20-106 | src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Program.cs:13-45 | src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Program.cs:11-44 | src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Program.cs:21-88 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Program.cs:14-69 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×2

Outbound HTTP without resilience src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/ElasticsearchPayloadStore.cs:9 — `new()` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default).
Outbound HTTP without resilience src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Sinks/ElasticsearchLogSink.cs:12 — `new HttpClient()` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default).

AX2 · Stateful singletons · Stateful singleton · ×1

Stateful singleton: MessagingInstrumentation src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Observability/MessagingInstrumentation.cs:6 — `MessagingInstrumentation` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_consumerLag; e.g. `_consumerLag` at line 42).

C1 · Data Protection · No data-protection/encryption · ×1

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

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync (cyclomatic 22) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:17 — RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×1

Hotspot: src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:17 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 22 in RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync at line 17. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-05-16..2026-08-14, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-05-16 20:00:07 +05:30' --until='2026-08-14 20:00:07 +05:30' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.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 · CommentedOutCode · ×1

CommentedOutCode src/aspire/aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults/Extensions.cs:93 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines

D18 · Solution Shape · Build failed · ×1

Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 1), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: CS1729: 'BasketCheckoutIntegrationEventHandler' does not contain a constructor that takes 3 arguments.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync (cognitive 34) · ×1

RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync (cognitive 34) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:17 — RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.Traverse (cognitive 24) · ×1

DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.Traverse (cognitive 24) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs:81 — DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.Traverse has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MessagingConfigurationValidationHostedService.Validate (cognitive 21) · ×1

MessagingConfigurationValidationHostedService.Validate (cognitive 21) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/DependencyInjection/MessagingConfigurationValidationHostedService.cs:98 — MessagingConfigurationValidationHostedService.Validate has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OutboxPublisherBase.ExecuteAsync (cognitive 19) · ×1

OutboxPublisherBase.ExecuteAsync (cognitive 19) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Outbox/OutboxPublisherBase.cs:23 — OutboxPublisherBase.ExecuteAsync has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LoggingConfiguration.Validate (cognitive 16) · ×1

LoggingConfiguration.Validate (cognitive 16) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/DependencyInjection/LoggingBuilder.cs:240 — LoggingConfiguration.Validate has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D20 · ADR Quality · No context/problem framing or consequences/trade-offs for each checklist item · ×1

No context/problem framing or consequences/trade-offs for each checklist item src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0002-Implementation-Checklist.md — Add a Context section explaining why recursive payload masking is needed (e.g. regulatory compliance, observability), and a Consequences section noting trade-offs such as performance cost of recursion depth limits and the loss of raw-payload persistence.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1

MethodTooLong: RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.InvokeAsync src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:17 — MethodTooLong — InvokeAsync runs 141 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 41 over it, 1.41× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:22 — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:22-43 | src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:22-43 | src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:22-43 | src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:22-43 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddlewareBase.cs:23-44 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (45 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (45 lines × 2) src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/GlobalExceptionHandler.cs:13 — src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/GlobalExceptionHandler.cs:13-57 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Infrastructure/GlobalExceptionHandler.cs:14-58 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/GlobalExceptionHandler.cs` and `src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Infrastructure/GlobalExceptionHandler.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 97% 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. 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 (29 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:106 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:106-134 | src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:159-187 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:156` calls `GetType` and `src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:104` 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 (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Events/ProductCreatedIntegrationEvent.cs:69 — src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Events/ProductCreatedIntegrationEvent.cs:69-87 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Events/ProductUpdatedIntegrationEvent.cs:73-91 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Events/ProductCreatedIntegrationEvent.cs` and `src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Events/ProductUpdatedIntegrationEvent.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 86% 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 (20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs:347 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs:347-366 | src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Redaction/DefaultLogRedactor.cs:148-167 — 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. 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 (17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Metadata/MessageMetadata.cs:5 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Metadata/MessageMetadata.cs:5-21 | src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Outbox/OutboxMetadata.cs:5-21 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:23 — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:23-39 | src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:23-39 | src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:23-39 | src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:23-39 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs` and `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 96% 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. 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:23` 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 (15 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 6) src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:27 — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:27-41 | src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/CartRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:27-41 | src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Observability/DiscountRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:27-41 | src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Observability/InventoryRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:27-41 | src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Observability/OrderRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:27-41 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Observability/ProductsRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:27-41 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs` and `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/CartRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 89% 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:27` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Options/LoggingPolicyOptions.cs:42 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Options/LoggingPolicyOptions.cs:42-58 | src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Options/PayloadProtectionOptions.cs:63-78 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Options/PayloadProtectionOptions.cs:79` calls `Where`, `IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, `ToList` and `src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Options/LoggingPolicyOptions.cs:59` 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 (16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs:316 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs:316-331 | src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Redaction/DefaultLogRedactor.cs:117-132 — 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/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs:316` 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 (12 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:32 — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:32-43 | src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:32-43 | src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:32-43 | src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:32-43 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddlewareBase.cs:33-44 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs` and `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 96% 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. 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs:32` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Program.cs:13 — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Program.cs:13-21 | src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Program.cs:22-30 | src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Program.cs:15-23 | src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Program.cs:13-21 | src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Program.cs:23-31 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 5 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 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Program.cs:65 — src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Program.cs:65-74 | src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Program.cs:45-54 — 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/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Program.cs:65` 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 (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/Persistence/InventoryTransactionExecutor.cs:33 — src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/Persistence/InventoryTransactionExecutor.cs:33-43 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Infrastructure/Persistence/ProductTransactionExecutor.cs:33-43 — 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/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/Persistence/InventoryTransactionExecutor.cs:33` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Program.cs:15 — src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Program.cs:15-23 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Program.cs:19-27 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 6) src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContext.cs:6 — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContext.cs:6-12 | src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContext.cs:6-12 | src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Observability/AppCallContext.cs:6-12 | src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Observability/AppCallContext.cs:6-12 | src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Observability/OrderAppCallContext.cs:6-12 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Observability/AppCallContext.cs:6-12 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 6 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 6 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContext.cs:6` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Create/CreateProductCommandValidator.cs:7 — src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Create/CreateProductCommandValidator.cs:7-13 | src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Update/UpdateProductCommandValidator.cs:8-14 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Create/CreateProductCommandValidator.cs:14` calls `RuleFor`, `GreaterThanOrEqualTo` and `src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Features/Products/Update/UpdateProductCommandValidator.cs:15` 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.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — test suite did not build — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×1

Async method without CancellationToken: InitializeDbAsync src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Data/DiscountDbInitializer.cs:8 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×1

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Middleware/RequestLoggingMiddlewareBase.cs:414 — `catch` 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.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) · ×1

Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Features/Cart/UpdateCart/UpdateCartCommand.cs:49 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.

Minor — 44 finding(s)

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×7

No security response headers detected — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
No security response headers detected src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Program.cs:12 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
No security response headers detected src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Program.cs:21 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
No security response headers detected src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Program.cs:14 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
No security response headers detected src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Program.cs:12 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
No security response headers detected src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Program.cs:22 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
No security response headers detected src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Program.cs:15 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids · Primitive id on a domain type · ×5

Primitive id on a domain type: InventoryItem.ProductId src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Domain/InventoryItem.cs:16 — `InventoryItem.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that.
Primitive id on a domain type: InventoryInitializedDomainEvent.ProductId src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Domain/Events/InventoryDomainEvents.cs:7 — `InventoryInitializedDomainEvent.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that.
Primitive id on a domain type: ProductCreatedDomainEvent.ProductId src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Domain/Events/ProductDomainEvents.cs:7 — `ProductCreatedDomainEvent.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that.
Primitive id on a domain type: ProductUpdatedDomainEvent.ProductId src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Domain/Events/ProductDomainEvents.cs:25 — `ProductUpdatedDomainEvent.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that.
Primitive id on a domain type: ProductDeletedDomainEvent.ProductId src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Domain/Events/ProductDomainEvents.cs:44 — `ProductDeletedDomainEvent.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that.

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×4

Duplicated predicate src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs:364 — `Regex.IsMatch(key, regexPattern, RegexOptions.IgnoreCase | RegexOptions.CultureInvariant) || Regex.IsMatch(terminal, regexPattern, RegexOpti…` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs, src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Redaction/DefaultLogRedactor.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/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs:36 — `appContext.Headers.TryGetValue(Constants.Headers.CallerService, out string? callerService) && !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(callerService)` appears character-identically in 6 files — src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs, src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/CartRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs, src/Services/Discount/Discount.Grpc/Observability/DiscountRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs, src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Observability/InventoryRequestLoggingMiddleware.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/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/Outbox/InventoryDomainEventDispatcher.cs:25 — `connection is not null && transaction is not null` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Infrastructure/Outbox/InventoryDomainEventDispatcher.cs, src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Infrastructure/Outbox/ProductDomainEventDispatcher.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/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs:318 — `string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(fieldPattern) || string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(maskerName)` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Pipeline/DefaultPayloadMaskingEngine.cs, src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Redaction/DefaultLogRedactor.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.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×3

README/code drift src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md:230 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md documents the environment variable `PRODUCT_CREATION_FAILED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. 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 src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md:231 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md documents the environment variable `ORDER_PAYMENT_TIMEOUT`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. 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 src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md:232 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md documents the environment variable `USER_AUTHENTICATION_FAILED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. 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.

X7 · Silent fallback defaults · Silent fallback default on parse failure · ×2

Silent fallback default on parse failure src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/DependencyInjection/LoggingConfigurationExtensions.cs:32 — `AddConfiguredCommonSharedKernelLogging` falls back to `LogFormatterKind.Json` when `Enum.TryParse(loggingSection["Console:FormatterKind"], true, out LogFormatterKin…` is false, with no log or throw — a malformed value silently becomes that default. Log the input or fail validation. If that constant is the correct answer to the test rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, this is not a silent default: say so in a comment on the member and the row stops firing.
Silent fallback default on parse failure src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Kafka/Consumers/KafkaMessageConsumer.cs:54 — `ConsumeLoopAsync` falls back to `AutoOffsetReset.Earliest` when `Enum.TryParse(_options.Kafka.AutoOffsetReset, true, out AutoOffsetReset reset)` is false, with no log or throw — a malformed value silently becomes that default. Log the input or fail validation. If that constant is the correct answer to the test rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, this is not a silent default: say so in a comment on the member and the row stops firing.

C2 · Access Controls · Thin authorization enforcement · ×1

Thin authorization enforcement — Authorization machinery exists but no [Authorize] usage and no imperative guard calls were found at handlers.

C4 · Data Retention · Partial data-retention evidence · ×1

Partial data-retention evidence — A retention mechanism is present, but the data-lifecycle is not yet complete — missing: a scheduled purge / cleanup job (PurgeOlderThan / CleanupJob).

D20 · ADR Quality · ADR has no Decision section · ×1

ADR has no Decision section src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md:1 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0001-lightweight-logging-hardening.md has no Decision section (a heading such as `## Decision`, or the MADR equivalent). A decision record states the context that forced it, the decision and its consequences, so a reader can tell later whether it still holds.

D20 · ADR Quality · ADR Decision section is empty · ×1

ADR Decision section is empty src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0002-recursive-payload-protection-and-storage.md:27 — src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/docs/ADR-0002-recursive-payload-protection-and-storage.md:27 heads a Decision section with nothing under it but a placeholder. A decision record states the context that forced it, the decision and its consequences; write what this one's decision are.

D27 · Navigability · Pass-through layer · ×1

Pass-through layer src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/DependencyInjection/Logger.cs:149 — Logger: all 3 public methods forward their arguments unchanged to _inner and add no behaviour — an extra hop (and usually an extra interface) to trace through. Call _inner directly, or give the layer a job.

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

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1

IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/DependencyInjection/LoggingBuilder.cs:142 — 1 of 848 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Common.SharedKernel.Logging.LoggingBuilder.Register @ src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/DependencyInjection/LoggingBuilder.cs:142, 264 IL instructions; that pulled this dimension to 10.0/10. These bodies are far past the JIT's inline budget, so splitting them does not make them inlinable — what moves the number is emitting less: collapsing LINQ chains and closures on hot paths, and interpolation built eagerly where it is only sometimes used.

DM8 · Value-object opportunities · Primitive data clump · ×1

Primitive data clump: [brand, category, currency, isactive, name, price, productid, sku, stockquantity] src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Domain/Events/ProductDomainEvents.cs:5 — The parameters [brand, category, currency, isactive, name, price, productid, sku, stockquantity] travel together across 4 signatures and were confirmed as a coherent concept by the model — that's a missing value object. Extracting them into one type (e.g. `Address`, `Money`, `Coordinate`) removes repetition, prevents argument-order mistakes, and gives the concept a home for its rules.

ED3 · Event naming · Event not named in past tense · ×1

Event not named in past tense: BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Events/BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.cs:6 — `BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear.

M3 · Folder & project structure · Inconsistent root namespaces · ×1

Inconsistent root namespaces — Only 8/23 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Sleep-based test synchronization · ×1

Sleep-based test synchronization — 8 Task.Delay/Thread.Sleep call(s) in test code synchronize with background work by sleeping — a known flakiness precursor on slow runners. Prefer polling with a deadline or completion signals.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 9/11 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 11, 7 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No rollback/health safety · ×1

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

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.

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

Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 108/115 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 · Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score · ×1

Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~0.2 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 9 suppression(s) across the 54458 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

Minor — 57 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×37

Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.Kafka — Aspire.Hosting.Kafka 13.4.2 → 13.6.3 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.AppHost).
Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.PostgreSQL — Aspire.Hosting.PostgreSQL 13.4.2 → 13.6.3 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.AppHost).
Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.RabbitMQ — Aspire.Hosting.RabbitMQ 13.4.2 → 13.6.3 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.AppHost).
Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.Redis — Aspire.Hosting.Redis 13.4.2 → 13.6.3 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.AppHost).
Outdated: MessagePack — REDACTED → 3.1.12 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.AppHost).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Http.Resilience — Microsoft.Extensions.Http.Resilience 10.7.0 → 10.11.0 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.ServiceDiscovery — Microsoft.Extensions.ServiceDiscovery 10.7.0 → 10.11.0 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.16.0 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting — OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting 1.16.0 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore 1.15.2 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http 1.15.1 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Runtime — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Runtime 1.15.1 → 1.20.1 available (referenced by aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults).
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi — Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi 10.0.8 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Gateway.Yarp).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.ServiceDiscovery.Yarp — Microsoft.Extensions.ServiceDiscovery.Yarp 10.7.0 → 10.11.0 available (referenced by Gateway.Yarp).
Outdated: Confluent.Kafka — Confluent.Kafka 2.14.2 → 2.16.0 available (referenced by Common.SharedKernel.Messaging).
Outdated: FluentValidation — FluentValidation 12.1.1 → 12.2.0 available (referenced by Common.SharedKernel).
Outdated: MediatR — MediatR 14.1.0 → 14.2.0 available (referenced by Common.SharedKernel).
Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore — Swashbuckle.AspNetCore 10.2.1 → 10.3.1 available (referenced by Common.SharedKernel).
Outdated: FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions — FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions 12.1.1 → 12.2.0 available (referenced by Cart.Api).
Outdated: Grpc.AspNetCore — Grpc.AspNetCore 2.80.0 → 2.84.0 available (referenced by Cart.Api).
Outdated: Grpc.Net.ClientFactory — Grpc.Net.ClientFactory 2.80.0 → 2.84.0 available (referenced by Cart.Api).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.StackExchangeRedis — Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.StackExchangeRedis 10.0.8 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Cart.Api).
Outdated: Dapper — Dapper 2.1.79 → 2.1.89 available (referenced by Discount.Grpc).
Outdated: Microsoft.Data.Sqlite — Microsoft.Data.Sqlite 10.0.8 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by Discount.Grpc).
Outdated: coverlet.collector — coverlet.collector 10.0.1 → 10.1.0 available (referenced by Common.SharedKernel.Logging.IntegrationTests).
+ 12 more in this group — see findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×10

XML-doc coverage: aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults src/aspire/aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults/aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults.csproj — aspnetrun-microservices.ServiceDefaults: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
XML-doc coverage: Gateway.Yarp src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Gateway.Yarp.csproj — Gateway.Yarp: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
XML-doc coverage: Common.SharedKernel.Logging src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Logging/Common.SharedKernel.Logging.csproj — Common.SharedKernel.Logging: 2 % XML-doc coverage (4/265).
XML-doc coverage: Common.SharedKernel.Messaging src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging/Common.SharedKernel.Messaging.csproj — Common.SharedKernel.Messaging: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/175).
XML-doc coverage: Common.SharedKernel src/Shared/Common.SharedKernel/Common.SharedKernel.csproj — Common.SharedKernel: 2 % XML-doc coverage (2/114).
XML-doc coverage: Cart.Api src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Cart.Api.csproj — Cart.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/64).
XML-doc coverage: Discount.Grpc REDACTED — Discount.Grpc: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/23).
XML-doc coverage: Inventory.Api src/Services/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Inventory.Api.csproj — Inventory.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/72).
XML-doc coverage: Order.Api src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Order.Api.csproj — Order.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/79).
XML-doc coverage: Products.Api src/Services/Product/Products.Api/Products.Api.csproj — Products.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/134).

D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×9

Mock framework: NSubstitute — Common.SharedKernel.Logging.IntegrationTests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: Moq — Inventory.Api.IntegrationTests references Moq.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Cart.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Common.SharedKernel.Logging.UnitTests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Common.SharedKernel.Messaging.UnitTests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Discount.Grpc.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: Moq — Inventory.Api.Tests references Moq.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Order.Api.Tests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: Moq — Products.Api.Tests references Moq.

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Inventory · ×1

Inventory: 1 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums — In Inventory, 1 contract type(s) (InitializeInventoryRequest) expose strong-typed ids/value objects (InitializeInventoryRequest); a serialized contract could expose the underlying primitive instead. Advisory — a deliberate strong-ID style is fine.

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-6ec67cdd99624a628815d36d47a37e10/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-6ec67cdd99624a628815d36d47a37e10/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 .	22	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list aspnetrun-microservices.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	3	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	15	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 79 file(s) — `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContext.cs`, `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs`, `src/Gateway/Gateway.Yarp/Observability/GatewayRequestLoggingMiddleware.cs`, `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContext.cs`, `src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Observability/AppCallContextMiddleware.cs`, … (+74 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	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 01a16238-5657-7c25-b693-21ebb28c2105 · 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 — 20 field(s) across 4 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.

Name — 8 field(s)

BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.FirstName src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Events/BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.cs:87
BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.LastName src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Events/BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.cs:88
CartCheckoutDto.FirstName src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Features/Cart/Checkout/CheckoutCartCommand.cs:11
CartCheckoutDto.LastName src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Features/Cart/Checkout/CheckoutCartCommand.cs:12
OrderEntity.FirstName src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Domain/OrderEntity.cs:8
OrderEntity.LastName src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Domain/OrderEntity.cs:9
CreateOrderCommand.FirstName src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Features/Orders/CreateOrder/CreateOrderCommand.cs:13
CreateOrderCommand.LastName src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Features/Orders/CreateOrder/CreateOrderCommand.cs:14

Address — 4 field(s)

BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.ZipCode src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Events/BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.cs:93
CartCheckoutDto.ZipCode src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Features/Cart/Checkout/CheckoutCartCommand.cs:17
OrderEntity.ZipCode src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Domain/OrderEntity.cs:14
CreateOrderCommand.ZipCode src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Features/Orders/CreateOrder/CreateOrderCommand.cs:19

Email — 4 field(s)

BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.EmailAddress src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Events/BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.cs:89
CartCheckoutDto.EmailAddress src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Features/Cart/Checkout/CheckoutCartCommand.cs:13
OrderEntity.EmailAddress src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Domain/OrderEntity.cs:10
CreateOrderCommand.EmailAddress src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Features/Orders/CreateOrder/CreateOrderCommand.cs:15

Financial (card / IBAN) — 4 field(s)

BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.CardNumber src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Events/BasketCheckoutIntegrationEvent.cs:95
CartCheckoutDto.CardNumber src/Services/Cart/Cart.Api/Features/Cart/Checkout/CheckoutCartCommand.cs:19
OrderEntity.CardNumber src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Domain/OrderEntity.cs:16
CreateOrderCommand.CardNumber src/Services/Order/Order.Api/Features/Orders/CreateOrder/CreateOrderCommand.cs:21

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 · 77% · Adequate · gated by D18 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 78% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 59% · Adequate ·

At a glance — Readiness · 50% · Adequate · gated by P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 49% · Weak · gated by D29, C1, C2 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 81% · Adequate · gated by DM2 ·

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

At a glance — Performance · 63% · Adequate ·

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