Public report — Entitas, published 5 Aug 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 05-08-2026 @ 14:26 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Sschmid/Entitas

dormant codebasebounded contexts not declared
62% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
middle
Architecture 98% Exemplary Code Health 85% Strong Performance 83% Strong Maturity 64% Adequate Readiness 60% Adequate Security 56% Adequate

Small · 6,462 LoC · 11 projects · rebuild ~0.2 person-years · weakest lens: Security (56%)

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

48/51dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
43findings with an exact file:lineof 69 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
51/97dimensions across the health lenses6462 LoC · 11 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.

sschmid/Entitas is sound in substance but carries real gaps (62%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.

It is strongest in Architecture (98%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Code Health (85%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Security (56%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (60%) is the next concern — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Extend structured logging across the projects you operate (Observability); SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); 6 High finding(s) (Static Analysis (SAST)).

For scale: Small (~6,462 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.2 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (98%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 85% Strong Architecture 98% ★ Exemplary Maturity 64% Adequate · gated by D34 Readiness 60% Adequate · gated by P3 Security 56% Adequate · gated by D29, D36 Performance 83% Strong
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Security 56% · 46% weightReadiness 60% · 25% weightMaturity 64% · 14% weightPerformance 83% · 8% weightCode Health 85% · 4% weightArchitecture 98% · 2% weight

Raise Security 56 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 62 → ~66.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 12%Plumbing 18%Tests 59%Analyzers 11%
New since the last scan (10+)

10 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-19) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D3 · ClassTooLong: ComponentGenerator gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentGenerator.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/TypeDrawer/ArrayTypeDrawer.cs
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
  • D35 · Change coupling: ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.cs ↔ MemberDeclaration.cs gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.cs
  • D36 · Workflow token permissions not restricted
  • D36 · Secret passed as a command-line argument

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 — €7,300–€37,000
Cost to rebuild€7,300–€37,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (122–389 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.9× (at 62% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 37% boilerplate · 21% straight-line · 42% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€22,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 56% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — library/CLI, high decision density × a 0.9× 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
Resolve the 6 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (5), release.yml.
+4.1 pts · Low effort · Static Analysis (SAST)
2
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
+3.5 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness
3
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs.
+2.9 pts · Low effort · Comment Value

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 56%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.2 person-years rebuild (6,462 LoC) · weakest lens: Security 56%
→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.

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 Entitas Entitas Entitas.Generators.Attributes Attributes Entitas.Unity Unity Entitas.Unity->Entitas Entitas.Unity.Editor Editor Entitas.Unity.Editor->Entitas Entitas.Unity.Editor->Entitas.Generators.Attributes Entitas.Unity.Editor->Entitas.Unity

Architecture — module dependency matrix

7 modules, 4 dependencies — every dependency points down the layering, so there are no cycles. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

(global)EntitasEntitas.Generators…Generators.AttributesEntitas.BenchmarksEntitas.UnityEntitas.Unity.Editor(global)1Entitas2Entitas.Generators3…Generators.Attributes4Entitas.Benchmarks5Entitas.Unity6Entitas.Unity.Editor741233

At a glance — Code Health · 85% · Strong

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.5 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 8.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.4 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.6 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 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 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0
The Bad
X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 5.6

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.3 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 8.8 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 9.8 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 64% · Adequate · gated by D34

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 5.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0
The Ugly
D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 3.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 60% · Adequate · gated by P3

The Good
D8 · .NET / C# Code Coverage 10.0 D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.6 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 8.6 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0
The Bad
P2 · Repo Observability 6.0
The Ugly
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 1.0

At a glance — Security · 56% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.8
The Ugly
D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 3.5 D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 83% · Strong

The Good
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 9.5 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0
The Bad
PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.5

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
A03:2021 — Injection6High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components2High / Critical

Roadmap

First, extend structured logging across all projects by implementing a diagnostics seam, such as an EventSource or ActivitySource, to avoid forcing logging dependencies on consumers. Next, integrate a security analysis step into the CI pipeline to fail the build on regressions, and immediately resolve the six high-severity static analysis findings in the build and release workflows. Finally, improve knowledge freshness by addressing dormant codebase issues and update the root README with a quick-start section to guide new users.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 6 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (5), release.yml.+4.1 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.+3.5 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs.+2.9 ptsLowComment Value
Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+2.4 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 6 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Entitas.csproj, Entitas.Benchmarks.csproj, Entitas.Generators.csproj.+2.3 ptsLowDocumentation Quality
Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+2.2 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.+4.4 ptsMediumObservability
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.+4.4 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 23 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 35% mixed · 65% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
.github/workflows/build.yml4.6MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: WhenAddingComponentToDestroyedEntity
.github/workflows/release.yml7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
tests/Entitas.Tests/ReactiveSystemTests.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: Dead code: CreateEntityAC
src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/DebugSystemsEditor.cs7.4MixedCyclomatic Complexity: DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos (cyclomatic 18)
src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/EntityDrawer.cs7.8MixedCognitive Complexity: EntityDrawer.DrawComponent (cognitive 58)
gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentGenerator.cs7.8MixedCognitive Complexity: ComponentGenerator.CreateComponentDeclarationsForCompilation (cognitive 25)
tests/Entitas.Generators.IntegrationTests/EntityIndexTests.cs7.8MixedTest Quality: No assertions: GeneratesEventSystems
tests/Entitas.Generators.Tests/fixtures/Components/NoValidFieldsNamespacedComponent.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
tests/Entitas.Generators.Tests/fixtures/Components/NonPublicComponent.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentDeclaration.cs8.5Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: ComponentDeclaration.ComponentDeclaration.ctor (cyclomatic 20)
src/Entitas/Context/Context.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: Context.Context.ctor (cognitive 20)
src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/TypeDrawer/DictionaryTypeDrawer.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: DictionaryTypeDrawer.DrawAndGetNewValue (cognitive 20)
src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/TypeDrawer/ArrayTypeDrawer.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)
tests/Entitas.Unity.Tests/SystemInfoTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: Skipped test: UsesNameOfDebugSystem
src/Entitas/Entitas.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas
benchmarks/Entitas.Benchmarks/Entitas.Benchmarks.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas.Benchmarks
gen/Entitas.Generators/Entitas.Generators.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas.Generators
src/Entitas.Generators.Attributes/Entitas.Generators.Attributes.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas.Generators.Attributes
src/Entitas.Unity/Entitas.Unity.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas.Unity

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. 48 of 51 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — 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
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6PF1PF2PF3X1X3X4X5

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, 43 of 69 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 coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets 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 measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fd251-39f1-7cb1-8a26-3516b40c5edc.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

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

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.5 / 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ComponentDeclaration.ComponentDeclaration.ctor at 20.

ComponentDeclaration.ComponentDeclaration.ctor (cyclomatic 20)gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentDeclaration.cs:24
DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos (cyclomatic 18)src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/DebugSystemsEditor.cs:221

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

7 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was EntityDrawer.DrawComponent at 58.

EntityDrawer.DrawComponent (cognitive 58)src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/EntityDrawer.cs:143
DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos (cognitive 31)src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/DebugSystemsEditor.cs:221
EntityDrawer.DrawObjectMember (cognitive 31)src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/EntityDrawer.cs:220
DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemList (cognitive 27)src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/DebugSystemsEditor.cs:140
ComponentGenerator.CreateComponentDeclarationsForCompilation (cognitive 25)gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentGenerator.cs:197

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 EntityDrawer.DrawComponent (cognitive 58) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with EntityDrawer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos (cognitive 31) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DebugSystemsEditor.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 EntityDrawer.DrawObjectMember (cognitive 31) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with EntityDrawer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 god class(es) detected.

ClassTooLong: ComponentGeneratorgen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentGenerator.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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 (8 lines × 2)src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/TypeDrawer/ArrayTypeDrawer.cs:94

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: Entitas.Generators.Attributes

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 18 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D8 · Code Coverage10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

Line coverage 92.8%.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

490 test methods: 409 unit, 81 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 skipped, 13 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 500 tests.

No assertions: WhenAddingComponentToDestroyedEntity · ×13tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:22
Skipped test: UsesNameOfDebugSystemtests/Entitas.Unity.Tests/SystemInfoTests.cs:94

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene8.6 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

10 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 2 deprecated packages.

Deprecated: xunit · ×2
Outdated: BenchmarkDotNet · ×10

What to do

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

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

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 Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

0 of 10 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.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 Debt9.6 / 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 deducted debt markers + 2 dead symbols across 6462 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.6.

BarePragmaDisable · ×2tests/Entitas.Generators.Tests/fixtures/Components/NoValidFieldsNamespacedComponent.cs:7
Dead code: CreateEntityAC · ×2tests/Entitas.Tests/ReactiveSystemTests.cs:289

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

11 projects, 229 source files, 12576 hand-written lines of code (6462 production / 6114 test), 16 inter-project edges (build failed).

Build prerequisites not fetched — git submodule not initialised

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

The single README is a strong branding and release-pager landing page with links to Discord, GitHub releases, Twitter follow buttons, and a donation link. It begins with an overview of Entitas as the most popular open-source ECS framework for C# and Unity, then dives into Why Entitas (a bulleted list of features including #1 open-source on GitHub, MIT licensing, and community presence), before clipping mid-sentence at 'great and helpful community on [Discord]('', which means the video tutorials/Unity Unite talks, a full download/setup guide, and other outlined sections are present but not shown. The body is clipped; no code or architecture docs accompany it.

Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas · ×6src/Entitas/Entitas.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Entitas.csproj, Entitas.Benchmarks.csproj, Entitas.Generators.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

12 valuable / 1 redundant across 63 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentbenchmarks/Entitas.Benchmarks/Program.cs:5

What to do

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

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

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 11 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

89 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 89 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 8.8/10. — 89 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 89 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. 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)3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×6.github/workflows/build.yml:10detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (5), release.yml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.8 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 · ×2detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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

35 of 35 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentGenerator.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

Strongest change-coupling: ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.cs↔MemberDeclaration.cs 50%

Change coupling: ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.cs ↔ MemberDeclaration.csgen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

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

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

Unpinned build actions
Workflow token permissions not restricted
Secret passed as a command-line argument
No build provenance
No artifact signing

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Workflow token permissions not restricted finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Secret passed as a command-line argument finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
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.

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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 segregation9.8 / 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.

  • `IContext` declares 18 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IContext.cs:9

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
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.

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 test is skipped ("Needs Unity") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — SystemInfoTests.cs:94

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)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 11 of 11 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

  • Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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 gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P2 · Observability6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 2/3 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 3, 0 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

PF1 · Benchmark discipline9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 6 use(s) across 6,612 production line(s) (~0.9/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

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.

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 logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X5 · Nullable reference types5.6 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • 3/6 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
  • ~0.9 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 9 suppression(s) across the 10203 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

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 Health85%StrongSolid.
Architecture98%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity64%Adequate — gated by D34Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness60%Adequate — gated by P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security56%Adequate — gated by D29, D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance83%StrongSolid.
Not included — 46 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — coverage data present but no domain-layer files were identified (no /Domain//Aggregates/ paths)
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 8 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×6
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:10 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:27 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:36 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:47 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:53 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: coverallsapp/github-action@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `coverallsapp/github-action@master`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/coverallsapp/github-action/commits/master --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/release.yml:13 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/download-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/download-artifact@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/download-artifact/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×2
  • High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. 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; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Warning — 43 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×13
  • No assertions: WhenAddingComponentToDestroyedEntity tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:22 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenRemovingComponentFromDestroyedEntity tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:29 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenReplacingComponentOnDestroyedEntity tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:36 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenAddingComponentTwice tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:43 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenRemovingComponentThatDoesNotExist tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:50 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenGettingComponentThatDoesNotExist tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:56 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenReleasingEntityWithWrongOwner tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:70 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenWrongContextInfoComponentNamesCount tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:97 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenReleasingEntityBeforeDestroy tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:119 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenUnknownEntityIndex tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:125 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: WhenGettingSingleEntityFromCollectionWhenMultipleExist tests/Entitas.Tests/EntitasErrorMessagesTests.cs:143 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: GeneratesEventSystems tests/Entitas.Generators.IntegrationTests/EntityIndexTests.cs:8 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: GeneratesEmptyEventSystems tests/Entitas.Generators.IntegrationTests/EntityIndexTests.cs:15 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×6
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas src/Entitas/Entitas.csproj — Entitas: 44 % XML-doc coverage (109/250).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas.Benchmarks benchmarks/Entitas.Benchmarks/Entitas.Benchmarks.csproj — Entitas.Benchmarks: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas.Generators gen/Entitas.Generators/Entitas.Generators.csproj — Entitas.Generators: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/156).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas.Generators.Attributes src/Entitas.Generators.Attributes/Entitas.Generators.Attributes.csproj — Entitas.Generators.Attributes: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/21).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas.Unity src/Entitas.Unity/Entitas.Unity.csproj — Entitas.Unity: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/87).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Entitas.Unity.Editor src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/Entitas.Unity.Editor.csproj — Entitas.Unity.Editor: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/123).
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×2
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `xunit.v3`; migrate the reference to it.
  • Deprecated: Verify.Xunit — Verify.Xunit 20.3.2 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `Verify.XunitV3`; migrate the reference to it.
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×2
  • BarePragmaDisable tests/Entitas.Generators.Tests/fixtures/Components/NoValidFieldsNamespacedComponent.cs:7 — #pragma warning disable CS0169 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
  • BarePragmaDisable tests/Entitas.Generators.Tests/fixtures/Components/NonPublicComponent.cs:7 — #pragma warning disable CS0649 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×2
  • Dead code: CreateEntityAC tests/Entitas.Tests/ReactiveSystemTests.cs:289 — Method CreateEntityAC — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: CreateEntityABC tests/Entitas.Tests/ReactiveSystemTests.cs:293 — Method CreateEntityABC — no references found in solution.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ComponentDeclaration.ComponentDeclaration.ctor (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • ComponentDeclaration.ComponentDeclaration.ctor (cyclomatic 20) gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentDeclaration.cs:24 — ComponentDeclaration.ComponentDeclaration.ctor has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 60, 32, 36). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos (cyclomatic 18) src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/DebugSystemsEditor.cs:221 — DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped test · ×1
  • Skipped test: UsesNameOfDebugSystem tests/Entitas.Unity.Tests/SystemInfoTests.cs:94 — Skipped — Needs Unity
D16 · Bus Factor · dormant codebase · ×1
  • dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate — All 35 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EntityDrawer.DrawComponent (cognitive 58) · ×1
  • EntityDrawer.DrawComponent (cognitive 58) src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/EntityDrawer.cs:143 — EntityDrawer.DrawComponent has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos (cognitive 31) src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/DebugSystemsEditor.cs:221 — DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemInfos has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EntityDrawer.DrawObjectMember (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • EntityDrawer.DrawObjectMember (cognitive 31) src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/EntityDrawer.cs:220 — EntityDrawer.DrawObjectMember has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemList (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemList (cognitive 27) src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/DebugSystemsEditor.cs:140 — DebugSystemsEditor.DrawSystemList has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ComponentGenerator.CreateComponentDeclarationsForCompilation (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • ComponentGenerator.CreateComponentDeclarationsForCompilation (cognitive 25) gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentGenerator.cs:197 — ComponentGenerator.CreateComponentDeclarationsForCompilation has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Context.Context.ctor (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • Context.Context.ctor (cognitive 20) src/Entitas/Context/Context.cs:83 — Context.Context.ctor has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 111, 133, 152, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DictionaryTypeDrawer.DrawAndGetNewValue (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • DictionaryTypeDrawer.DrawAndGetNewValue (cognitive 20) src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/TypeDrawer/DictionaryTypeDrawer.cs:16 — DictionaryTypeDrawer.DrawAndGetNewValue has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: ComponentGenerator gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentGenerator.cs:0 — ClassTooLong — 565 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 19 methods, declared across 11 files: Component/ComponentGenerator.cs (9), Component/ComponentGenerator.CleanupSystem.cs (1), Component/ComponentGenerator.CleanupSystems.cs (1), Component/ComponentGenerator.ComponentIndex.cs (1), +7 more file(s). The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1
  • Change coupling: ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.cs ↔ MemberDeclaration.cs gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.cs — `gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.cs` and `gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/MemberDeclaration.cs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1
  • Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 8 floating ref(s) across 3 workflow file(s), 3 of them mutable BRANCH refs — pin those first. The reusable-workflow ref(s) below are the SAST lens's blind spot — pin these first: `sschmid/Entitas/.github/workflows/build.yml@main` (.github/workflows/release.yml:7), `sschmid/Entitas/.github/workflows/build.yml@main` (.github/workflows/ci.yml:11)
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Workflow token permissions not restricted · ×1
  • Workflow token permissions not restricted — No workflow declares a `permissions:` block, so every job runs with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope (3 workflow file(s) checked). On a repository whose default is read/write, a compromised action or a malicious pull request inherits write access to code, issues, releases and packages. Declare a least-privilege `permissions:` block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of each workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Secret passed as a command-line argument · ×1
  • Secret passed as a command-line argument — 1 CI command(s) pass a credential as a bare command-line argument, where it is visible in the runner's process table to any other process on the host (and to anything that logs a command line): release.yml: dotnet nuget push "*.nupkg" --api-key ${{ secrets.NUGET_API_KEY }} --skip-duplicate --source https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json. Pass the credential through the environment instead (an `env:` mapping on the step, read by the tool from its own variable) or on stdin, so it never appears in an argument vector.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/TypeDrawer/ArrayTypeDrawer.cs:94 — src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/TypeDrawer/ArrayTypeDrawer.cs:94-102 | src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/TypeDrawer/ArrayTypeDrawer.cs:124-131 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Entitas.Unity.Editor/TypeDrawer/ArrayTypeDrawer.cs:94` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: Entitas.Generators.Attributes — Entitas.Generators.Attributes: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Recommendation — 6 finding(s)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 6462 LoC across 11 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment benchmarks/Entitas.Benchmarks/Program.cs:5 — "BenchmarkRunner.Run<DelegateBenchmarks>();" — delete - auto-generated benchmark runner stub
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 35 of 35 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 35 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1
  • No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI — nothing binds a released artifact to the build that produced it, so a consumer cannot tell your artifact from a substituted one. On GitHub Actions, `actions/attest-build-provenance` (or slsa-github-generator) emits one from the job's own OIDC identity; elsewhere, run `cosign attest` over the released artifact from the release pipeline and publish the attestation beside it.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1
  • No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them, Authenticode via signtool, or `dotnet nuget sign` for packages) so consumers can verify what you built.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1
  • No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`sbom-tool generate` (install it with `dotnet tool install --global Microsoft.Sbom.DotNetTool`) or `dotnet CycloneDX` over the solution, `syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
Info — 12 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×10
  • Outdated: BenchmarkDotNet — BenchmarkDotNet 0.13.5 → 0.15.8 available (referenced by Entitas.Benchmarks).
  • Outdated: coverlet.collector — coverlet.collector 6.0.0 → 10.0.1 available (referenced by Entitas.Tests).
  • Outdated: FluentAssertions — FluentAssertions 6.11.0 → 8.10.0 available (referenced by Entitas.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 17.6.2 → 18.8.1 available (referenced by Entitas.Tests).
  • Outdated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 → 2.9.3 available (referenced by Entitas.Tests).
  • Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio — xunit.runner.visualstudio 2.4.5 → 3.1.5 available (referenced by Entitas.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers 3.3.4 → 5.6.0 available (referenced by Entitas.Generators).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp 4.1.0 → 5.6.0 available (referenced by Entitas.Generators).
  • Outdated: Verify.SourceGenerators — Verify.SourceGenerators 2.1.0 → 2.5.0 available (referenced by Entitas.Generators.Tests).
  • Outdated: Verify.Xunit — Verify.Xunit 20.3.2 → 31.12.5 available (referenced by Entitas.Generators.Tests).
D18 · Solution Shape · Build prerequisites not fetched · ×1
  • Build prerequisites not fetched — git submodule not initialised — The repository declares git submodule(s) (unity/Unity-2021.3.0f1) that are not checked out in the tree the analyzer was given, and every compiler error is an unresolved reference (CS0246: The type or namespace name 'UnityEngine' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'MonoBehaviour' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'GameObject' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)). Those types exist for anyone who cloned with `--recurse-submodules`, so this is an analyzer-input gap, NOT a code defect: Solution Shape is scored on structure and is NOT capped.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

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 /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .6artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list Entitas.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json2artifacts/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 build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—

Run 019fd251-39f1-7cb1-8a26-3516b40c5edc · 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 — 4 field(s) across 1 category, 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.

Name — 4 field(s)
  • ComponentDeclaration.FullName gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ComponentDeclaration.cs:12
  • ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.ContextFullName gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/ContextInitializationMethodDeclaration.cs:15
  • MemberDeclaration.ValidLowerFirstName gen/Entitas.Generators/Component/MemberDeclaration.cs:13
  • ContextDeclaration.FullName gen/Entitas.Generators/Context/ContextDeclaration.cs:10

Issues: 8 · Warnings: 43 · Recommendations: 6 · Info: 12 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 05-08-2026 @ 14:26 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