Backend collection of author's side projects
Public report — SoonStack.Backend, published 19 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 19-06-2026 @ 22:35 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Sooneeatwork/SoonStack.Backend

single-maintainerbounded contexts not declared
35% Provisional
Architecture 89% Healthy Code Health 75% Fair Maturity 51% Fair Readiness 35% Poor Security 18% Critical

Small · 2,474 LoC · 19 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Security (18%)

Build did not compile — scores are provisional
The analysed solution did not compile (3 build error(s)). Dimensions that depend on the compiler — complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface — ran on incomplete models, so the scores below are provisional. Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade. First errors: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'BaseEntity' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'Product' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

49/51dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 2 LLM-assisted, advisory
54findings with an exact file:lineof 98 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
51/91dimensions across the health lenses2474 LoC · 19 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

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

sooneeatwork/SoonStack.Backend carries serious risk (35%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Architecture (89%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Code Health (75%) is solid too.

Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.

The area that most needs attention is Security (18%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (35%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); Protect endpoints by default-deny (Access Controls); security response headers (Content-Security-Policy (Web-Security Posture).

For scale: Small (~2,474 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (89%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 75% Fair · gated by D18 Architecture 89% Healthy Maturity 51% Fair · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 35% Poor · gated by D8, P1, P3 Security 18% ⚠ Critical · gated by C1, C2, S1
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 12%Plumbing 48%Tests 40%
New since the last scan (15+)

15 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-19) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: SharedKernel SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/SharedKernel.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Infrastructure SoonMonoCleanStore/Infrastructure/Infrastructure.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: ProductSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ProductSlices/ProductSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: CustomerSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/CustomerSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: OrderSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/OrderSlices/OrderSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DapperPersistance SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/DapperPersistance.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: InventoryMgmtSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/InventoryMgmtSlices/InventoryMgmtSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: OrderProcessingSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/OrderProcessingSlices/OrderProcessingSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: ShippingSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ShippingSlices/ShippingSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: CRMSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/CRMSlices/CRMSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: PromotionsSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/PromotionsSlices/PromotionsSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: ReportSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ReportSlices/ReportSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: WishListSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/WishListSlices/WishListSlices.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: ShoppingCartSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ShoppingCartSlices/ShoppingCartSlices.csproj
  • D21 · LLM evaluation not run — infrastructure error

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,300–€6,300
Cost to rebuild€1,300–€6,300 (0.1 person-years (21–66 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 35% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 53% boilerplate · 26% straight-line · 21% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€3,800 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 18% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — service/app, CQRS × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
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.).
+5.0 pts · Medium effort · Data Protection
2
Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
+5.0 pts · Medium effort · Access Controls
3
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
+2.0 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Highest-leverage move: fix the build · Critical · Leverage
The solution doesn't compile, so every Roslyn-derived dimension (complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface) ran on incomplete models and is PROVISIONAL. Fixing the build is the single change that makes the rest of the report trustworthy — do it first. The compiler reported: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'BaseEntity' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'Product' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?).
Evidence: D18 build: The compiler reported: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'BaseEntity' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'Product' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?).
→ Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 18%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (2,474 LoC) · weakest lens: Security 18%
→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

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.

arch CRMSlices CRMSlices CustomerSlices CustomerSlices DapperPersistance DapperPersistance CustomerSlices->DapperPersistance Infrastructure Infrastructure CustomerSlices->Infrastructure SharedKernel SharedKernel CustomerSlices->SharedKernel DapperPersistance->SharedKernel Document Document Infrastructure->SharedKernel InventoryMgmtSlices InventoryMgmtSlices OrderProcessingSlices OrderProcessingSlices OrderSlices OrderSlices OrderSlices->DapperPersistance OrderSlices->Infrastructure OrderSlices->SharedKernel ProductSlices ProductSlices ProductSlices->DapperPersistance ProductSlices->Infrastructure ProductSlices->SharedKernel PromotionsSlices PromotionsSlices ReportSlices ReportSlices ShippingSlices ShippingSlices ShoppingCartSlices ShoppingCartSlices UserSlices UserSlices UserSlices->SharedKernel WishListSlices WishListSlices

At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Fair · gated by D18

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.7 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.9
The Bad
X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 5.5 X4 · Repo Structured logging 5.5
The Ugly
D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 3.0

At a glance — Architecture · 89% · Healthy

The Good
D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 8.9 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 7.3 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 7.3 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 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
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 5.8

At a glance — Maturity · 51% · Fair · gated by D34, M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 2.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 2.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 3.5 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 4.0

At a glance — Readiness · 35% · Poor · gated by D8, P1, P3

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 8.0
The Bad
D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 6.2 P2 · Repo Observability 6.0
The Ugly
D8 · .NET / C# Code Coverage 3.3 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 18% · Critical · gated by C1, C2, S1

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0
The Ugly
D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 4.7 C1 · Repo Data Protection 0.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 0.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 2.5

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 categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components11High / Critical

Roadmap

First, encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys in a vault, or skip if delegated to infrastructure. Next, enforce default-deny access controls on all endpoints using authorization attributes or imperative guard methods. Then, harden the web-security posture by adding essential security response headers for defense in depth. Additionally, implement a CI workflow to build and test on every push or pull request. Finally, expand the architecture decision record log to at least 20 entries to improve documentation maturity.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
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.).+5.0 ptsMediumData Protection
Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.+5.0 ptsMediumAccess Controls
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.+2.0 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.+3.8 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+3.3 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+1.3 ptsLowADR Quality
Grow the ADR log (currently 12) — reach 20 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.+2.6 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.+2.4 ptsMediumFolder & project structure

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 24 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 0% mixed · 100% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
SoonMonoCleanStore/TestProject1/UnitTest1.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Test1
SoonMonoCleanStore/InventoryMgmtSlices/InventoryMgmtSlices.csproj8.0Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: InventoryMgmtSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/OrderProcessingSlices/OrderProcessingSlices.csproj8.0Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: OrderProcessingSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/ShippingSlices/ShippingSlices.csproj8.0Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: ShippingSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/CRMSlices/CRMSlices.csproj8.0Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: CRMSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/PromotionsSlices/PromotionsSlices.csproj8.0Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: PromotionsSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/ReportSlices/ReportSlices.csproj8.0Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: ReportSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/WishListSlices/WishListSlices.csproj8.0Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: WishListSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/ShoppingCartSlices/ShoppingCartSlices.csproj8.0Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: ShoppingCartSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/OrderModel/Order.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: AddOrderItem
SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/RepoInterface/Class1.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: Class1
SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/GenericRepository.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)
SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/DatabaseQueryExecutor/DbSqlExecutor.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: DbSqlExecutor (LCOM4 4)
SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/SharedKernel.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: SharedKernel
SoonMonoCleanStore/Infrastructure/Infrastructure.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Infrastructure
SoonMonoCleanStore/ProductSlices/ProductSlices.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: ProductSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/CustomerSlices.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: CustomerSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/OrderSlices/OrderSlices.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: OrderSlices
SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/DapperPersistance.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: DapperPersistance
SoonMonoCleanStore/UserSlices/UserSlices.csproj9.5Near-cleanSolution Shape: Shell project: UserSlices

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. 49 of 51 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 51 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D20D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35AX1AX10AX3AX5AX6AX7AX8AX9C1C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3S1X1X2X3X4X5

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
  1. 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, 54 of 98 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementQwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019ee206-c809-730f-a510-22957dc7f539.

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.

  • D21 Naming Consistency — LLM host unreachable (infrastructure error) — The model host was unreachable or errored at the transport/server level, so this dimension was NOT evaluated and is excluded from the score. This is an infrastructure failure, not a low score or a benign measurement gap — re-run with a reachable provider; see diagnostics.md.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • LLM host unreachable — model-assisted dimensions ran Degraded — One or more LLM-assisted dimensions could not be evaluated because the model host was unreachable or errored. Those dimensions are excluded from the score (an infrastructure failure, not a low score). No LLM-dimension conclusions should be drawn from this run; re-run with a reachable provider — diagnostics.md records the exact cause.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • 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 (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • 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.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D20, D22, D24, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/GenericRepository.cs:79

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling5.8 / 10Fair✓ 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 5.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: InventoryMgmtSlices · ×10

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)8.9 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

1 of 11 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: DbSqlExecutor (LCOM4 4)SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/DatabaseQueryExecutor/DbSqlExecutor.cs:16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with DbSqlExecutor.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D8 · Code Coverage3.3 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

Line coverage 0.0%, branch coverage 0.0%.

What to do

  1. Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md.

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

5 test methods: 5 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D10 · Test Quality6.2 / 10Fair✓ 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 6.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 6 tests.

No assertions: Test1SoonMonoCleanStore/TestProject1/UnitTest1.cs:5
Mock framework: NSubstitute

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with UnitTest1.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. 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.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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.

D14 · License Compliance8.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 20 packages use a banned license.

Banned license: MySql.Data
Licenses scanned

What to do

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

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 deducted debt markers + 3 dead symbols across 2474 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.7.

Dead code: AddOrderItem · ×2SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/OrderModel/Order.cs:51
Justified suppressionSoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/ValueObject/Address.cs:29

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D18 · Solution Shape3.0 / 10Poor✓ 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

19 projects, 139 .cs files, 4107 hand-written lines of code (2474 production / 1633 test), 25 inter-project edges (build failed).

Build failed
Shell project: UserSlices · ×10SoonMonoCleanStore/UserSlices/UserSlices.csproj
SharedKernel (Production)SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/SharedKernel.csproj
Infrastructure (Production)SoonMonoCleanStore/Infrastructure/Infrastructure.csproj
RestApi (Production)SoonMonoCleanStore/RestApi/RestApi.csproj

+ 16 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with CRMSlices.csproj, Document.csproj, InventoryMgmtSlices.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 recommendation-level).
  2. 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.

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Critical◐ 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 Critical / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The project has a single README file that provides basic setup instructions but suffers from significant quality issues. The content is inconsistent, containing placeholder text (e.g., 'yourusername'), broken links, and contradictory instructions. There are no architecture or design documents, and the codebase lacks any XML documentation comments, resulting in zero automated documentation coverage. The README also contains a typo ('infomation') and references a wiki that likely does not exist.

Low XML-doc coverage: SharedKernel · ×14SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/SharedKernel.csproj
XML-doc coverage: UserSlices · ×2SoonMonoCleanStore/UserSlices/UserSlices.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 14 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with CRMSlices.csproj, CustomerSlices.csproj, DapperPersistance.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.

No exposed public API

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

1 valuable / 100 redundant across 131 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×3SoonMonoCleanStore/CleanStoreTest/ProductMgmTest/AddProductCommandTest.cs:16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with AddProductCommandTest.cs, CustomerController.cs, GlobalUsings.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

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

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 19 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability7.3 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

98 % of calls cross a namespace and 25 % go through an interface, but 70 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 7.3/10. — 98 % of calls cross a namespace and 25 % go through an interface, but 70 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

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

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities4.7 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 vulnerable package(s): 1 critical, 5 high, 5 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: Npgsql 8.0.1 · ×5detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 4.7.0detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 7.0.3 · ×5detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

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

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

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

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

29 of 29 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/GenericRepository.cs.

Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

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.

AX10 · Code composition7.3 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

What to do

  • Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
  • Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
C2 · Access Controls0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies 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.

  • No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.

What to do

  • Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
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.

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, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — GenericRepository.cs:149

What to do

  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 19 of 19 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation3.5 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

  • Grow the ADR log (currently 12) — reach 20 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure4.0 / 10Poor✓ 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.

  • Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
  • Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
  • Only 1/19 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
  • 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.
M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P2 · Observability6.0 / 10Fair✓ 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 4/6 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
S1 · Web-Security Posture2.5 / 10Poor✓ 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. Deterministic.

  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No ModelState/[ApiController]/FluentValidation signal — inbound payloads reach handlers unvalidated. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)

What to do

  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
  • Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
  • Validate inbound models (ModelState/[ApiController]/FluentValidation) to reduce injection and bad-data risk.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X2 · Cancellation propagation5.5 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 10/39 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — SupabaseStorageService.cs:18, StreamProcessor.cs:12, ProductCommandService.cs:14, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X4 · Structured logging5.5 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. — AddProductCategory.cs:57

What to do

  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
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.

  • ~0.1 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 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 `!`.

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health75%Fair — gated by D18Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture89%HealthyStrongest area.
Maturity51%Fair — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness35%Poor — gated by D8, P1, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security18%Critical — gated by C1, C2, S1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 40 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 — Frontend below the scale floor (7 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — Frontend below the scale floor (7 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC3 Page structure — Frontend below the scale floor (7 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — Frontend below the scale floor (7 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — Frontend below the scale floor (7 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — Frontend below the scale floor (7 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — Frontend below the scale floor (7 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice + CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
  • D21 Naming Consistency — LLM evaluation not run — infrastructure error
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
  • ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): a message-bus package; 10 CQRS handler(s)
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 9 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×5
  • High CVE: Npgsql 8.0.1 — Npgsql 8.0.1 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Text.Json 8.0.0 — System.Text.Json 8.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Text.Json 8.0.0 — System.Text.Json 8.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×1
  • No assertions: Test1 SoonMonoCleanStore/TestProject1/UnitTest1.cs:5 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
D14 · License Compliance · Banned license · ×1
  • Banned license: MySql.Data — MySql.Data 8.2.0 is licensed GPL-2.0-only (banned by policy).
D21 · Naming Consistency · LLM evaluation not run · ×1
  • LLM evaluation not run — infrastructure error — The model host was unreachable or errored (OpenAI-compatible endpoint returned HTTP 504: request timed out after 240s (HttpClient.Timeout) — the prompt was likely too large to evaluate in the budget); this dimension was NOT evaluated and is excluded from the score. This is an infrastructure failure, not a low score — re-run with a reachable provider.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×1
  • Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 4.7.0 — System.Drawing.Common 4.7.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Warning — 35 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×14
  • Low XML-doc coverage: SharedKernel SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/SharedKernel.csproj — SharedKernel: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/116).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Infrastructure SoonMonoCleanStore/Infrastructure/Infrastructure.csproj — Infrastructure: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/20).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ProductSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ProductSlices/ProductSlices.csproj — ProductSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/64).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: CustomerSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/CustomerSlices.csproj — CustomerSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/37).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: OrderSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/OrderSlices/OrderSlices.csproj — OrderSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/50).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DapperPersistance SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/DapperPersistance.csproj — DapperPersistance: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/45).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: InventoryMgmtSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/InventoryMgmtSlices/InventoryMgmtSlices.csproj — InventoryMgmtSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: OrderProcessingSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/OrderProcessingSlices/OrderProcessingSlices.csproj — OrderProcessingSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ShippingSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ShippingSlices/ShippingSlices.csproj — ShippingSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: CRMSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/CRMSlices/CRMSlices.csproj — CRMSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: PromotionsSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/PromotionsSlices/PromotionsSlices.csproj — PromotionsSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ReportSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ReportSlices/ReportSlices.csproj — ReportSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: WishListSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/WishListSlices/WishListSlices.csproj — WishListSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ShoppingCartSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ShoppingCartSlices/ShoppingCartSlices.csproj — ShoppingCartSlices: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×10
  • Off the main sequence: InventoryMgmtSlices — InventoryMgmtSlices: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: OrderProcessingSlices — OrderProcessingSlices: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: ShippingSlices — ShippingSlices: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: CRMSlices — CRMSlices: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: PromotionsSlices — PromotionsSlices: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: ReportSlices — ReportSlices: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: WishListSlices — WishListSlices: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: ShoppingCartSlices — ShoppingCartSlices: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Document — Document: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: SharedKernel — SharedKernel: abstractness 0.19, instability 0.00, distance 0.81 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×5
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 7.0.3 — Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 7.0.3 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 7.0.3 — System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 7.0.3 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1 — BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1 — BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1 — BouncyCastle.Cryptography 2.2.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×2
  • Dead code: AddOrderItem SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/OrderModel/Order.cs:51 — Method AddOrderItem — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: Class1 SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/RepoInterface/Class1.cs:9 — NamedType Class1 — no references found in solution.
D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1
  • single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (1 author(s) across 59 commit(s) sampled).
D18 · Solution Shape · Build failed · ×1
  • Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 3), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'BaseEntity' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'Product' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?).
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/GenericRepository.cs:79 — SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/GenericRepository.cs:79-83 | SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/GenericRepository.cs:88-93
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1
  • Low cohesion: DbSqlExecutor (LCOM4 4) SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/DatabaseQueryExecutor/DbSqlExecutor.cs:16 — DbSqlExecutor's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Recommendation — 25 finding(s)
D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×10
  • Shell project: UserSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/UserSlices/UserSlices.csproj — `UserSlices` contributes only 1 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: InventoryMgmtSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/InventoryMgmtSlices/InventoryMgmtSlices.csproj — `InventoryMgmtSlices` contributes only 6 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: OrderProcessingSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/OrderProcessingSlices/OrderProcessingSlices.csproj — `OrderProcessingSlices` contributes only 6 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: ShippingSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ShippingSlices/ShippingSlices.csproj — `ShippingSlices` contributes only 6 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: CRMSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/CRMSlices/CRMSlices.csproj — `CRMSlices` contributes only 6 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: PromotionsSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/PromotionsSlices/PromotionsSlices.csproj — `PromotionsSlices` contributes only 6 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: ReportSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ReportSlices/ReportSlices.csproj — `ReportSlices` contributes only 6 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: WishListSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/WishListSlices/WishListSlices.csproj — `WishListSlices` contributes only 6 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: ShoppingCartSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/ShoppingCartSlices/ShoppingCartSlices.csproj — `ShoppingCartSlices` contributes only 6 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Document SoonMonoCleanStore/Document/Document.csproj — `Document` contributes only 1 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×3
  • redundant comment SoonMonoCleanStore/CleanStoreTest/ProductMgmTest/AddProductCommandTest.cs:16 — "// Arrange" — Remove this comment. The structure of the test method (setup, act, assert) is a standard convention; the comment adds no new information.
  • redundant comment SoonMonoCleanStore/RestApi/Controllers/CustomerController/CustomerController.cs:35 — "// Log the exception details" — Remove this comment. It describes a generic action that is likely implemented in a base class or logging utility, offering no specific insight into the current method's logic.
  • redundant comment SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/GlobalUsings.cs:1 — "// GlobalUsings.cs" — Remove. This is a file header comment that doesn't explain the code's behavior or intent.
D11 · Test Reliability · No tests discovered · ×1
  • No tests discovered — Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) built and ran but no tests were discovered, so reliability couldn't be exercised.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — A codebase of this scale and complexity with multiple projects likely contains implicit architectural boundaries that require explicit declaration to effectively assess cross-boundary coupling. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1
  • no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 29 of 29 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 29 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info — 29 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×2
  • XML-doc coverage: UserSlices SoonMonoCleanStore/UserSlices/UserSlices.csproj — UserSlices: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
  • XML-doc coverage: Document SoonMonoCleanStore/Document/Document.csproj — Document: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — CleanStoreTest references NSubstitute.
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 20 packages scanned; 5 distinct SPDX licenses.
D17 · Explicit Debt · Justified suppression · ×1
  • Justified suppression SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/ValueObject/Address.cs:29 — #pragma warning disable CS8765 // Nullability of type of parameter doesn't match overridden member (possibly because of nullability attributes).
D18 · Solution Shape · SharedKernel (Production) · ×1
  • SharedKernel (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/SharedKernel.csproj — 23 .cs files, 767 LoC (597 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Infrastructure (Production) · ×1
  • Infrastructure (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/Infrastructure/Infrastructure.csproj — 9 .cs files, 213 LoC (169 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · RestApi (Production) · ×1
  • RestApi (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/RestApi/RestApi.csproj — 4 .cs files, 308 LoC (228 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · ProductSlices (Production) · ×1
  • ProductSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/ProductSlices/ProductSlices.csproj — 19 .cs files, 732 LoC (573 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CustomerSlices (Production) · ×1
  • CustomerSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/CustomerSlices.csproj — 10 .cs files, 399 LoC (304 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · OrderSlices (Production) · ×1
  • OrderSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/OrderSlices/OrderSlices.csproj — 14 .cs files, 388 LoC (304 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DapperPersistance (Production) · ×1
  • DapperPersistance (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/Persistance/DapperPersistance.csproj — 12 .cs files, 518 LoC (417 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · UserSlices (Production) · ×1
  • UserSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/UserSlices/UserSlices.csproj — 1 .cs files, 1 LoC (1 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · ProductMgmtSlices (Production) · ×1
  • ProductMgmtSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/ProductMgmtSlices/ProductMgmtSlices.csproj — 35 .cs files, 1586 LoC (1266 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · InventoryMgmtSlices (Production) · ×1
  • InventoryMgmtSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/InventoryMgmtSlices/InventoryMgmtSlices.csproj — 1 .cs files, 7 LoC (6 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · OrderProcessingSlices (Production) · ×1
  • OrderProcessingSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/OrderProcessingSlices/OrderProcessingSlices.csproj — 1 .cs files, 7 LoC (6 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · ShippingSlices (Production) · ×1
  • ShippingSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/ShippingSlices/ShippingSlices.csproj — 1 .cs files, 7 LoC (6 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CRMSlices (Production) · ×1
  • CRMSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/CRMSlices/CRMSlices.csproj — 1 .cs files, 7 LoC (6 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · PromotionsSlices (Production) · ×1
  • PromotionsSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/PromotionsSlices/PromotionsSlices.csproj — 1 .cs files, 8 LoC (6 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · ReportSlices (Production) · ×1
  • ReportSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/ReportSlices/ReportSlices.csproj — 1 .cs files, 7 LoC (6 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · WishListSlices (Production) · ×1
  • WishListSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/WishListSlices/WishListSlices.csproj — 1 .cs files, 7 LoC (6 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · ShoppingCartSlices (Production) · ×1
  • ShoppingCartSlices (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/ShoppingCartSlices/ShoppingCartSlices.csproj — 1 .cs files, 7 LoC (6 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CleanStoreTest (Test) · ×1
  • CleanStoreTest (Test) SoonMonoCleanStore/CleanStoreTest/CleanStoreTest.csproj — 3 .cs files, 122 LoC (72 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Document (Production) · ×1
  • Document (Production) SoonMonoCleanStore/Document/Document.csproj — 1 .cs files, 3 LoC (1 significant)
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1
  • Unit tests — 5 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 0 integration test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1
  • BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1
  • E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list SoonMonoCleanStore/SoonMonoCleanStore.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json11artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0—

Run 019ee206-c809-730f-a510-22957dc7f539 · 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 with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Address — 7 field(s)
  • CustomersTable.BillingAddress SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/Repository/DatabaseModel/CustomersTable.cs:10
  • AddNewCustomerProfileCommand.NewBillingAddress SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/UseCases/AddNewCustomerProfile.cs:11
  • EditCustomerProfileCommand.NewBillingAddress SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/UseCases/EditCustomerProfile.cs:10
  • CustomerProfileResponse.BillingAddress SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/UseCases/ViewCustomerProfile.cs:14
  • Customer.BillingAddress SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/CustomerModel/Customer.cs:11
  • Address.PostalCode SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/UsersModel/Address.cs:10
  • Address.PostalCode SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/ValueObject/Address.cs:14
Email — 6 field(s)
  • CustomersTable.Email SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/Repository/DatabaseModel/CustomersTable.cs:8
  • AddNewCustomerProfileCommand.NewEmail SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/UseCases/AddNewCustomerProfile.cs:9
  • EditCustomerProfileCommand.NewEmail SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/UseCases/EditCustomerProfile.cs:8
  • CustomerProfileResponse.Email SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/UseCases/ViewCustomerProfile.cs:12
  • Customer.Email SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/CustomerModel/Customer.cs:9
  • User.Email SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/UsersModel/User.cs:7
Date of birth — 5 field(s)
  • CustomersTable.DateOfBirth SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/Repository/DatabaseModel/CustomersTable.cs:9
  • AddNewCustomerProfileCommand.NewDateOfBirth SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/UseCases/AddNewCustomerProfile.cs:10
  • EditCustomerProfileCommand.NewDateOfBirth SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/UseCases/EditCustomerProfile.cs:9
  • CustomerProfileResponse.DateOfBirth SoonMonoCleanStore/CustomerSlices/UseCases/ViewCustomerProfile.cs:13
  • Customer.DateOfBirth SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/CustomerModel/Customer.cs:10
Name — 2 field(s)
  • User.FirstName SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/UsersModel/User.cs:9
  • User.LastName SoonMonoCleanStore/SharedKernal/Domain/DomainModel/UsersModel/User.cs:10

Issues: 9 · Warnings: 35 · Recommendations: 25 · Info: 29 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 19-06-2026 @ 22:35 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md