Public report — eventbus, published 3 Aug 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 03-08-2026 @ 15:31 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Tinglesoftware/eventbus

61% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
middle

Small · 12,552 LoC · 32 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Maturity (55%)

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

51/53dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 2 LLM-assisted, advisory
84findings with an exact file:lineof 115 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
53/97dimensions across the health lenses12552 LoC · 32 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.

tinglesoftware/eventbus is in a workable but fragile state (61%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.

It is strongest in Architecture (98%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Code Health (96%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Maturity (55%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Security (55%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation); SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); Nothing pauses a release for a human (Deployment & Rollback).

For scale: Small (~12,552 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

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

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.
Maturity 55% · 47% weightSecurity 55% · 26% weightReadiness 60% · 14% weightCode Health 96% · 8% weightArchitecture 98% · 4% weight

No single dominant problem — the weakest areas are close, so progress on any of them moves the score.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 30%Plumbing 63%Tests 7%
New since the last scan (80+)

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

  • D2 · AmazonSqsTransport.PublishCoreAsync (cognitive 20) src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs/AmazonSqsTransport.cs
  • D2 · AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 20) src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs
  • D2 · KafkaConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 18) src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka/KafkaConfigureOptions.cs
  • D2 · RabbitMqConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 17) src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.RabbitMQ/RabbitMqConfigureOptions.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/PublisherService.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) samples/AotSupport/Program.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) samples/AotSupport/Program.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) samples/ConfigSample/VisualsProducerService.cs
  • D5 · Off the main sequence: Tingle.EventBus
  • D8 · Low coverage: ILoggerExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/ILoggerExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: InMemoryEventContextExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/InMemoryEventContextExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: InMemoryTestHarness.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/InMemoryTestHarness.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: BroadcastChannelWriter.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/Client/BroadcastChannelWriter.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: InMemoryMessage.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/Client/InMemoryMessage.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: ILoggerExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Extensions/ILoggerExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: EventBusOptions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/DependencyInjection/EventBusOptions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: EventBusBuilderExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Serialization/Xml/EventBusBuilderExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: EventBus.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/EventBus.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: IEventPublisherExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Publisher/IEventPublisherExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: WrappedEventPublisher.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Publisher/WrappedEventPublisher.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: ScheduledResult.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/ScheduledResult.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: XmlEventEnvelope.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Serialization/Xml/XmlEventEnvelope.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: XmlEventSerializer.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Serialization/Xml/XmlEventSerializer.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: XmlHeader.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Serialization/Xml/XmlHeader.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: AbstractRetryableEvent.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Retries/AbstractRetryableEvent.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: IRetryableEventExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Retries/IRetryableEventExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: EventTransportNameAttribute.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Configuration/Attributes/EventTransportNameAttribute.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: EventConsumerRegistration.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Configuration/EventConsumerRegistration.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: EventBusHost.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Internal/EventBusHost.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: ILoggerExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/ILoggerExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: AzureEventHubsEventContextExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsEventContextExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: IotHubEventContextExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/IotHub/IotHubEventContextExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: AzureEventHubsEventRegistrationExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsEventRegistrationExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: AzureEventHubsTransport.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: IotHubEventDataExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/IotHub/IotHubEventDataExtensions.cs
  • D8 · Low coverage: AzureIotEventsConsumer.cs samples/AzureIotHub/AzureIotEventsConsumer.cs
  • D8 · CRAP 66: AzureEventHubsTransport.OnEventReceivedAsync src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs
  • D8 · CRAP 42: AzureIotEventsConsumer.ConsumeAsync samples/AzureIotHub/AzureIotEventsConsumer.cs
  • D8 · CRAP 40: AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.PostConfigure src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs
  • D8 · CRAP 39: AzureEventHubsTransport.PublishCoreAsync src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs/AmazonSqsTransport.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage/AzureQueueStorageTransport.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/InMemoryTransport.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka/KafkaTransport.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus/DependencyInjection/EventBusBuilder.cs
  • D17 · Dead code: DummyTelemetry1 tests/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs.Tests/IotHubEventSerializerTests.cs
  • D17 · Dead code: DummyEvent2 tests/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs.Tests/IotHubEventSerializerTests.cs
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: AmazonSqsAndSns samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/AmazonSqsAndSns.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: AotSupport samples/AotSupport/AotSupport.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: AzureIotHub samples/AzureIotHub/AzureIotHub.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: AzureManagedIdentity samples/AzureManagedIdentity/AzureManagedIdentity.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: ConfigSample samples/ConfigSample/ConfigSample.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: CustomEventConfigurator samples/CustomEventConfigurator/CustomEventConfigurator.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: CustomEventSerializer samples/CustomEventSerializer/CustomEventSerializer.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HealthCheck samples/HealthCheck/HealthCheck.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: InMemoryBackgroundProcessing samples/InMemoryBackgroundProcessing/InMemoryBackgroundProcessing.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: MultiEventsConsumer samples/MultiEventsConsumer/MultiEventsConsumer.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: MultipleConsumers samples/MultipleConsumers/MultipleConsumers.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: MultipleDifferentTransports samples/MultipleDifferentTransports/MultipleDifferentTransports.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: MultipleSimilarTransports samples/MultipleSimilarTransports/MultipleSimilarTransports.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: SimpleConsumer samples/SimpleConsumer/SimpleConsumer.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus.csproj
  • D24 · LLM evaluation failed
  • D29 · High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.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
  • 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/codespell.yml
  • D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codespell.yml
  • D36 · Unpinned build actions
  • D36 · Secret passed as a command-line argument
  • ED5 · Non-idempotent mutation: AmazonSqsAndSns.PublisherService.ExecuteAsync samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/PublisherService.cs
  • ED5 · Non-idempotent mutation: MultipleConsumers.PublisherService.ExecuteAsync samples/MultipleConsumers/PublisherService.cs
  • ED5 · Non-idempotent mutation: SimplePublisher.PublisherService.ExecuteAsync samples/SimplePublisher/PublisherService.cs

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €6,700–€34,000
Cost to rebuild€6,700–€34,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (111–353 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.8× (at 61% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 54% boilerplate · 13% straight-line · 32% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€20,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 55% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — service/app × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 9 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (6), codespell.yml (2), dependabot.yml.
+3.4 pts · Low effort · Static Analysis (SAST)
2
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).
+6.6 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
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.
+5.4 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 55%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (12,552 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 55%
→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity 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: 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). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ 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).

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 AmazonSqsAndSns AmazonSqsAndSns Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs Sqs AmazonSqsAndSns->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs AotSupport AotSupport Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory InMemory AotSupport->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory AzureIotHub AzureIotHub Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs EventHubs AzureIotHub->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs AzureManagedIdentity AzureManagedIdentity Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus ServiceBus AzureManagedIdentity->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus ConfigSample ConfigSample ConfigSample->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus ConfigSample->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory CustomEventConfigurator CustomEventConfigurator Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage QueueStorage CustomEventConfigurator->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage CustomEventSerializer CustomEventSerializer CustomEventSerializer->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage HealthCheck HealthCheck HealthCheck->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus InMemoryBackgroundProcessing InMemoryBackgroundProcessing InMemoryBackgroundProcessing->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory MultipleConsumers MultipleConsumers Tingle.EventBus.Serializers.NewtonsoftJson NewtonsoftJson MultipleConsumers->Tingle.EventBus.Serializers.NewtonsoftJson MultipleConsumers->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory MultipleDifferentTransports MultipleDifferentTransports MultipleDifferentTransports->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs MultipleDifferentTransports->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus Tingle.EventBus EventBus Tingle.EventBus.Serializers.NewtonsoftJson->Tingle.EventBus Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Abstractions Abstractions Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Abstractions->Tingle.EventBus Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Abstractions Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions Abstractions Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions->Tingle.EventBus Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus->Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory->Tingle.EventBus __more__ +7 more projects

Architecture — module dependency matrix

28 modules, 73 dependencies — 1 dependency cycle, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

(global)Amazon.RuntimeConfluent.KafkaSystem…Expressions.Generated….EventBus.Diagnostics…ngle.EventBus.Retries…Bus.Transports.Amazon…ventBus.Serialization…ventBus.Configuration….EventBus.Serializers…zure.EventHubs.IotHubTingle.EventBus.Ids…e.EventBus.Transports…gle.EventBus.Internal…s.Transports.InMemory…ports.InMemory.ClientTingle.EventBus…s.DependencyInjection…ft.Extensions.Logging…Bus.Serialization.Xml…sports.Amazon.Kinesis…Transports.Amazon.Sqs…ports.Azure.EventHubs…ts.Azure.QueueStorage…orts.Azure.ServiceBus…tBus.Transports.Kafka…s.Transports.RabbitMQ(global)1Amazon.Runtime2Confluent.Kafka3System4…Expressions.Generated5….EventBus.Diagnostics6…ngle.EventBus.Retries7…Bus.Transports.Amazon8…ventBus.Serialization9…ventBus.Configuration10….EventBus.Serializers11…zure.EventHubs.IotHub12Tingle.EventBus.Ids13…e.EventBus.Transports14…gle.EventBus.Internal15…s.Transports.InMemory16…ports.InMemory.Client17Tingle.EventBus18…s.DependencyInjection19…ft.Extensions.Logging20…Bus.Serialization.Xml21…sports.Amazon.Kinesis22…Transports.Amazon.Sqs23…ports.Azure.EventHubs24…ts.Azure.QueueStorage25…orts.Azure.ServiceBus26…tBus.Transports.Kafka27…s.Transports.RabbitMQ2821224441412743111122163316611211145261171112221132311222112231122312231122

At a glance — Code Health · 96% · Exemplary

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary

At a glance — Maturity · 55% · Adequate · gated by M2

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

At a glance — Security · 55% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36

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 — Injection9High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by documenting significant architectural decisions in a centralized location to establish clear context and consequences for future reference. Next, integrate static analysis and security scanning into the CI pipeline to automatically fail builds that introduce security regressions. To prevent bad releases from reaching users, implement manual approval gates or draft release workflows that allow for immediate rollback. Finally, maintain a changelog to track shipped changes and update the root README with clear instructions on how to run the test suite.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 9 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (6), codespell.yml (2), dependabot.yml.+3.4 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
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).+6.6 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
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.+5.4 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.+5.4 ptsMediumDeployment & Rollback
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+5.4 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.+5.3 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Resolve the 16 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with AmazonSqsAndSns.csproj, AotSupport.csproj, AzureIotHub.csproj.+4.8 ptsMediumDocumentation Quality
Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.+3.4 ptsMediumFolder & project structure

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 58 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 16% mixed · 84% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
.github/workflows/build.yml4.5MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
.github/workflows/codespell.yml5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs6.3MixedCognitive Complexity: AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 20)
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs/AmazonSqsTransport.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
.github/dependabot.yml7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: dependabot-missing-cooldown
tests/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs.Tests/IotHubEventSerializerTests.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: Dead code: DummyTelemetry1
samples/AotSupport/Program.cs7.8MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
samples/AzureIotHub/AzureIotEventsConsumer.cs7.8MixedCode Coverage: Low coverage: AzureIotEventsConsumer.cs
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage/AzureQueueStorageTransport.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/InMemoryTransport.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka/KafkaTransport.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Tingle.EventBus/DependencyInjection/EventBusBuilder.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka/KafkaConfigureOptions.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: KafkaConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 18)
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.RabbitMQ/RabbitMqConfigureOptions.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: RabbitMqConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 17)
samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/PublisherService.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (18 lines × 3)
samples/ConfigSample/VisualsProducerService.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/ILoggerExtensions.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Coverage: Low coverage: ILoggerExtensions.cs
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/InMemoryEventContextExtensions.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Coverage: Low coverage: InMemoryEventContextExtensions.cs
src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/InMemoryTestHarness.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Coverage: Low coverage: InMemoryTestHarness.cs

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 51 of 53 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 53 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D21D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D39AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6X1X2X3X4X5

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, 84 of 115 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 019fc840-98d8-7ed8-bf44-fb5cc1c4a177.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • 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.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AmazonSqsTransport.PublishCoreAsync at 20.

AmazonSqsTransport.PublishCoreAsync (cognitive 20)src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs/AmazonSqsTransport.cs:155
AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 20)src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs:56
KafkaConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 18)src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka/KafkaConfigureOptions.cs:19
RabbitMqConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 17)src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.RabbitMQ/RabbitMqConfigureOptions.cs:19

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

4 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (18 lines × 3)samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/PublisherService.cs:8
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)samples/AotSupport/Program.cs:32
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)samples/AotSupport/Program.cs:58
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)samples/ConfigSample/VisualsProducerService.cs:7

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling9.8 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: Tingle.EventBus

✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 35 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D8 · Code Coverage8.7 / 10Strong✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

Line coverage 51.6% — 28 file(s) below 50% · 4 method(s) over the CRAP-30 risk line.

Low coverage: ILoggerExtensions.cs · ×28src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/ILoggerExtensions.cs
CRAP 66: AzureEventHubsTransport.OnEventReceivedAsyncsrc/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs:345
CRAP 42: AzureIotEventsConsumer.ConsumeAsyncsamples/AzureIotHub/AzureIotEventsConsumer.cs:12
CRAP 40: AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.PostConfiguresrc/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs:56
CRAP 39: AzureEventHubsTransport.PublishCoreAsyncsrc/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs:134

What to do

  1. Resolve the 28 Low coverage finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with ILoggerExtensions.cs (3), InMemoryEventContextExtensions.cs, InMemoryTestHarness.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (28 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 CRAP 66 finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with AzureEventHubsTransport.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 CRAP 42 finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with AzureIotEventsConsumer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

31 test methods: 31 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 31 tests.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

20 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting · ×20

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 27 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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.

D16 · Bus Factor9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus/AzureServiceBusTransport.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 deducted debt markers + 2 dead symbols across 12552 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8.

TodoComment · ×6src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs/AmazonSqsTransport.cs:436
Dead code: DummyTelemetry1 · ×2tests/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs.Tests/IotHubEventSerializerTests.cs:223

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D18 · Solution Shape9.7 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

32 projects, 267 source files, 13513 hand-written lines of code (12552 production / 961 test), 78 inter-project edges.

Thin analysable surface across projects

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Weak◐ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The README is a solid one-paragraph description of the project (what it does, its purpose, where to find packages) plus an unstructured Packages table for each Tingle.EventBus library. It mentions NuGet badges and links to the GitHub workflow status, Dependabot, and LICENSE but gives no real documentation beyond itself. The visible content is thin on concrete guidance: there is no Getting started or a Features section explaining what each transport does, and the XML-doc coverage (325/391 packages) far exceeds any prose present in this single README.

Low XML-doc coverage: AmazonSqsAndSns · ×16samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/AmazonSqsAndSns.csproj
XML-doc coverage: SimplePublisher · ×11samples/SimplePublisher/SimplePublisher.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 16 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with AmazonSqsAndSns.csproj, AotSupport.csproj, AzureIotHub.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 32 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

83 % of calls cross a namespace and 1 % go through an interface, but 93 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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)2.1 / 10Critical✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 2.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

9 finding(s): 0 critical, 9 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High: dependabot-missing-cooldown · ×9.github/dependabot.yml:8detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 9 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (6), codespell.yml (2), dependabot.yml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

Unpinned build actions
Secret passed as a command-line argument
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM

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 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).
  3. Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 725 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX10 · Code composition9.4 / 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).
AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

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 segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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.

ED5 · Idempotency7.9 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

  • `AmazonSqsAndSns.PublisherService.ExecuteAsync` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — PublisherService.cs:5
  • `MultipleConsumers.PublisherService.ExecuteAsync` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — PublisherService.cs:5
  • `SimplePublisher.PublisherService.ExecuteAsync` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — PublisherService.cs:5

What to do

  • Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — EventBusBuilder.cs:131

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)6.7 / 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 '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 32 of 32 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.
  • No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

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).
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 17/32 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

  • Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
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 · Observability9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 24/25 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 25, 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.
P3 · Security & performance tooling3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 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.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X2 · Cancellation propagation9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 125/131 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. (×3) — AzureEventHubsTransport.cs:345, AzureServiceBusTransport.cs:500, InMemoryTransport.cs:312
  • No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×3) — RabbitMqTransport.cs:429, RabbitMqTransport.cs:438, RabbitMqTransport.cs:447

What to do

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

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

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

X4 · Structured 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 types8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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.

  • ~1.4 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 79 suppression(s) across the 56981 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 Health96%ExemplarySolid.
Architecture98%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity55%Adequate — gated by M2Capped 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.
Security55%Adequate — gated by D29, D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 44 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • 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.
  • 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
  • D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
  • 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.
  • 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 only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (1 value object(s))
  • ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 24 event handler(s); a message-bus package
  • 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 — no outbound HTTP usage detected
  • 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)
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 9 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×9
  • High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:8 — This Dependabot configuration does not set a cooldown period. Newly published packages can be malicious or unstable. Add a `cooldown` block with `default-days: 7` to each `package-ecosystem` entry under `updates` to wait 7 days before proposing updates to newly published package versions. Reference: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/dependabot/dependabot-version-updates/configuration-options-for-the-dependabot.yml-file#cooldown. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule reporting a POLICY that is absent or weaker than its recommendation, not an exploitable defect. Confirm whether the current setting is a deliberate decision for this repository — and apply the change where it is not; where it is (a policy your release process already enforces elsewhere, or one this repository has consciously opted out of), record the decision and leave the configuration as it is. This configuration file has 4 such entries; one cooldown decision clears them all — reported once.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:40 — 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@v6`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v6 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:45 — 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/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:48 — 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: gittools/actions/gitversion/setup@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `gittools/actions/gitversion/setup@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/gittools/actions/commits/v4 --jq .sha`. `gittools/actions/gitversion/setup` is hosted INSIDE the `gittools/actions` repository (a subdirectory action or a reusable workflow), so the SHA to pin is that repository's commit — keep the full `gittools/actions/gitversion/setup` path in `uses:` and query only `gittools/actions`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:51 — 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: gittools/actions/gitversion/execute@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `gittools/actions/gitversion/execute@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/gittools/actions/commits/v4 --jq .sha`. `gittools/actions/gitversion/execute` is hosted INSIDE the `gittools/actions` repository (a subdirectory action or a reusable workflow), so the SHA to pin is that repository's commit — keep the full `gittools/actions/gitversion/execute` path in `uses:` and query only `gittools/actions`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:85 — 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@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:101 — 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: NuGet/login@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `NuGet/login@v1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/NuGet/login/commits/v1 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codespell.yml:19 — 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@v6`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v6 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codespell.yml:21 — 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: codespell-project/actions-codespell@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `codespell-project/actions-codespell@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/codespell-project/actions-codespell/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
Warning — 68 finding(s)
D8 · Code Coverage · Low coverage · ×28
  • Low coverage: ILoggerExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/ILoggerExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/17).
  • Low coverage: InMemoryEventContextExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/InMemoryEventContextExtensions.cs — 40.0% line coverage (6/15).
  • Low coverage: InMemoryTestHarness.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/InMemoryTestHarness.cs — 44.4% line coverage (20/45).
  • Low coverage: BroadcastChannelWriter.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/Client/BroadcastChannelWriter.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/5).
  • Low coverage: InMemoryMessage.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/Client/InMemoryMessage.cs — 42.1% line coverage (8/19).
  • Low coverage: ILoggerExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Extensions/ILoggerExtensions.cs — 29.4% line coverage (10/34).
  • Low coverage: EventBusOptions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/DependencyInjection/EventBusOptions.cs — 47.5% line coverage (29/61).
  • Low coverage: EventBusBuilderExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Serialization/Xml/EventBusBuilderExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/7).
  • Low coverage: EventBus.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/EventBus.cs — 46.6% line coverage (62/133).
  • Low coverage: IEventPublisherExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Publisher/IEventPublisherExtensions.cs — 8.5% line coverage (4/47).
  • Low coverage: WrappedEventPublisher.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Publisher/WrappedEventPublisher.cs — 11.8% line coverage (2/17).
  • Low coverage: ScheduledResult.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/ScheduledResult.cs — 28.6% line coverage (4/14).
  • Low coverage: XmlEventEnvelope.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Serialization/Xml/XmlEventEnvelope.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/27).
  • Low coverage: XmlEventSerializer.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Serialization/Xml/XmlEventSerializer.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/12).
  • Low coverage: XmlHeader.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Serialization/Xml/XmlHeader.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/9).
  • Low coverage: AbstractRetryableEvent.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Retries/AbstractRetryableEvent.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/14).
  • Low coverage: IRetryableEventExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Retries/IRetryableEventExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/47).
  • Low coverage: EventTransportNameAttribute.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Configuration/Attributes/EventTransportNameAttribute.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/8).
  • Low coverage: EventConsumerRegistration.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Configuration/EventConsumerRegistration.cs — 46.9% line coverage (15/32).
  • Low coverage: EventBusHost.cs src/Tingle.EventBus/Internal/EventBusHost.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/20).
  • Low coverage: ILoggerExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/ILoggerExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/11).
  • Low coverage: AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs — 45.7% line coverage (32/70).
  • Low coverage: AzureEventHubsEventContextExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsEventContextExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/49).
  • Low coverage: IotHubEventContextExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/IotHub/IotHubEventContextExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/15).
  • Low coverage: AzureEventHubsEventRegistrationExtensions.cs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsEventRegistrationExtensions.cs — 0.0% line coverage (0/21).
  • + 3 more in this group — see findings.md.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×16
  • Low XML-doc coverage: AmazonSqsAndSns samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/AmazonSqsAndSns.csproj — AmazonSqsAndSns: 38 % XML-doc coverage (3/8).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: AotSupport samples/AotSupport/AotSupport.csproj — AotSupport: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: AzureIotHub samples/AzureIotHub/AzureIotHub.csproj — AzureIotHub: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: AzureManagedIdentity samples/AzureManagedIdentity/AzureManagedIdentity.csproj — AzureManagedIdentity: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/14).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ConfigSample samples/ConfigSample/ConfigSample.csproj — ConfigSample: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/19).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: CustomEventConfigurator samples/CustomEventConfigurator/CustomEventConfigurator.csproj — CustomEventConfigurator: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: CustomEventSerializer samples/CustomEventSerializer/CustomEventSerializer.csproj — CustomEventSerializer: 45 % XML-doc coverage (9/20).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HealthCheck samples/HealthCheck/HealthCheck.csproj — HealthCheck: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: InMemoryBackgroundProcessing samples/InMemoryBackgroundProcessing/InMemoryBackgroundProcessing.csproj — InMemoryBackgroundProcessing: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/4).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: MultiEventsConsumer samples/MultiEventsConsumer/MultiEventsConsumer.csproj — MultiEventsConsumer: 46 % XML-doc coverage (6/13).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: MultipleConsumers samples/MultipleConsumers/MultipleConsumers.csproj — MultipleConsumers: 30 % XML-doc coverage (3/10).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: MultipleDifferentTransports samples/MultipleDifferentTransports/MultipleDifferentTransports.csproj — MultipleDifferentTransports: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/13).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: MultipleSimilarTransports samples/MultipleSimilarTransports/MultipleSimilarTransports.csproj — MultipleSimilarTransports: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/8).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: SimpleConsumer samples/SimpleConsumer/SimpleConsumer.csproj — SimpleConsumer: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/11).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs: 45 % XML-doc coverage (15/33).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus: 46 % XML-doc coverage (25/54).
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×6
  • TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs/AmazonSqsTransport.cs:436 — // TODO: figure out what to do when dead-letter fails — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs:417 — // TODO: figure out what to do when dead-letter fails — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage/AzureQueueStorageTransport.cs:332 — // TODO: figure out what to do when dead-letter fails — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/InMemoryTransport.cs:367 — // TODO: figure out what to do when dead-letter fails — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka/KafkaTransport.cs:320 — // TODO: figure out what to do when dead-letter fails — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Tingle.EventBus/DependencyInjection/EventBusBuilder.cs:106 — // TODO: remove after https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/42358 is addressed
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×2
  • Dead code: DummyTelemetry1 tests/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs.Tests/IotHubEventSerializerTests.cs:223 — NamedType DummyTelemetry1 — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: DummyEvent2 tests/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs.Tests/IotHubEventSerializerTests.cs:224 — NamedType DummyEvent2 — no references found in solution.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AmazonSqsTransport.PublishCoreAsync (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • AmazonSqsTransport.PublishCoreAsync (cognitive 20) src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs/AmazonSqsTransport.cs:155 — AmazonSqsTransport.PublishCoreAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (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 · AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 20) src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs:56 — AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.PostConfigure has cognitive complexity 20 (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 · KafkaConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • KafkaConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 18) src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka/KafkaConfigureOptions.cs:19 — KafkaConfigureOptions.PostConfigure has cognitive complexity 18 (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 · RabbitMqConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • RabbitMqConfigureOptions.PostConfigure (cognitive 17) src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.RabbitMQ/RabbitMqConfigureOptions.cs:19 — RabbitMqConfigureOptions.PostConfigure has cognitive complexity 17 (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.
D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1
  • LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.notable[5] | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 935.
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 2 workflow file(s). Each floating ref is itemized at file:line by the SAST (D29) lens.
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): build.yml: --api-key ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}. 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 (18 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/PublisherService.cs:8 — samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/PublisherService.cs:8-25 | samples/MultipleConsumers/PublisherService.cs:8-25 | samples/SimplePublisher/PublisherService.cs:8-25 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `samples/AmazonSqsAndSns/PublisherService.cs:8` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) samples/AotSupport/Program.cs:32 — samples/AotSupport/Program.cs:32-48 | samples/InMemoryBackgroundProcessing/Program.cs:31-47 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `samples/AotSupport/Program.cs:32` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) samples/AotSupport/Program.cs:58 — samples/AotSupport/Program.cs:58-70 | samples/InMemoryBackgroundProcessing/Program.cs:57-69 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) samples/ConfigSample/VisualsProducerService.cs:7 — samples/ConfigSample/VisualsProducerService.cs:7-18 | samples/MultipleSimilarTransports/Program.cs:28-39 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `samples/ConfigSample/VisualsProducerService.cs:7` 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.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: Tingle.EventBus — Tingle.EventBus: abstractness 0.26, instability 0.00, distance 0.74 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 11 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
D8 · Code Coverage · CRAP 66 · ×1
  • CRAP 66: AzureEventHubsTransport.OnEventReceivedAsync src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs:345 — Cyclomatic 8 with 3.3% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
D8 · Code Coverage · CRAP 42 · ×1
  • CRAP 42: AzureIotEventsConsumer.ConsumeAsync samples/AzureIotHub/AzureIotEventsConsumer.cs:12 — Cyclomatic 6 with 0.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
D8 · Code Coverage · CRAP 40 · ×1
  • CRAP 40: AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.PostConfigure src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsConfigureOptions.cs:56 — Cyclomatic 13 with 45.7% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
D8 · Code Coverage · CRAP 39 · ×1
  • CRAP 39: AzureEventHubsTransport.PublishCoreAsync src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs:134 — Cyclomatic 6 with 3.3% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
Recommendation — 6 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 5 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus/AzureServiceBusTransport.cs, src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/AzureEventHubsTransport.cs, src/Tingle.EventBus/Transports/EventBusTransport.cs, src/Tingle.EventBus/Serialization/AbstractEventSerializer.cs, src/Tingle.EventBus/Transports/EventBusTransportConfigureOptions.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects — 4 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka.Tests` with 25 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 96 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.29 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 12552 LoC spread over 32 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"]`.
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 — 32 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×20
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by AmazonSqsAndSns).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.HealthChecks — Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.HealthChecks 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by HealthCheck).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory — Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by MultiEventsConsumer).
  • Outdated: AWSSDK.Core — AWSSDK.Core 4.0.6 → 4.0.100.9 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Abstractions).
  • Outdated: AWSSDK.Kinesis — AWSSDK.Kinesis 4.0.8.13 → 4.0.100.7 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Kinesis).
  • Outdated: AWSSDK.SimpleNotificationService — AWSSDK.SimpleNotificationService 4.0.2.29 → 4.0.100.7 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs).
  • Outdated: AWSSDK.SQS — AWSSDK.SQS 4.0.2.27 → 4.0.100.7 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Sqs).
  • Outdated: Azure.Core — Azure.Core 1.54.0 → 1.60.0 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions).
  • Outdated: Azure.Storage.Queues — Azure.Storage.Queues 12.25.0 → 12.27.1 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage).
  • Outdated: Azure.Messaging.ServiceBus — Azure.Messaging.ServiceBus 7.20.1 → 7.20.2 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.ServiceBus).
  • Outdated: Confluent.Kafka — Confluent.Kafka 2.14.0 → 2.15.0 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder — Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options — Microsoft.Extensions.Options 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus).
  • Outdated: Polly.Core — Polly.Core 8.6.6 → 8.7.0 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus).
  • Outdated: System.Memory.Data — System.Memory.Data 10.0.7 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus).
  • Outdated: coverlet.collector — coverlet.collector 10.0.0 → 10.0.1 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Tests).
  • Outdated: MartinCostello.Logging.XUnit.v3 — MartinCostello.Logging.XUnit.v3 0.7.0 → 0.7.1 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 18.5.1 → 18.8.1 available (referenced by Tingle.EventBus.Tests).
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×11
  • XML-doc coverage: SimplePublisher samples/SimplePublisher/SimplePublisher.csproj — SimplePublisher: 50 % XML-doc coverage (3/6).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Serializers.NewtonsoftJson src/Tingle.EventBus.Serializers.NewtonsoftJson/Tingle.EventBus.Serializers.NewtonsoftJson.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Serializers.NewtonsoftJson: 75 % XML-doc coverage (6/8).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Abstractions src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Abstractions/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Abstractions.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Abstractions: 100 % XML-doc coverage (15/15).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Kinesis src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Kinesis/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Kinesis.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Amazon.Kinesis: 76 % XML-doc coverage (13/17).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.Abstractions: 100 % XML-doc coverage (6/6).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.EventHubs: 85 % XML-doc coverage (105/123).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Azure.QueueStorage: 55 % XML-doc coverage (17/31).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.InMemory: 77 % XML-doc coverage (77/100).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.Kafka: 60 % XML-doc coverage (15/25).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus.Transports.RabbitMQ src/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.RabbitMQ/Tingle.EventBus.Transports.RabbitMQ.csproj — Tingle.EventBus.Transports.RabbitMQ: 94 % XML-doc coverage (15/16).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tingle.EventBus src/Tingle.EventBus/Tingle.EventBus.csproj — Tingle.EventBus: 83 % XML-doc coverage (325/391).
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)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .9artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet list Tingle.EventBus.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json0artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy: 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 Policydisclosuredisclosure: 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-scannerosv-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-hardeningruntime-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-hardeningruntime-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-hardeningruntime-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 019fc840-98d8-7ed8-bf44-fb5cc1c4a177 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

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