Executive summary
Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.
The system holds an adequate overall standing at 63%, reflecting a small, well-engineered asset that is currently carrying disproportionate operational risk due to weak documentation and maturity. While the code itself is clean and the architecture is sound, the lack of recorded decision-making context creates a fragile foundation for future changes. This is not a broken system, but it is one where knowledge is siloed and assumptions are undocumented, posing a risk to delivery speed and team continuity.
The value at stake is modest, with only about 3,200 lines of production code and a rebuild cost of roughly €4,300. This low barrier to entry means the business is not locked into a complex legacy monolith, but it also means the cost of losing institutional knowledge is high relative to the asset's size. The code is highly modular with no boilerplate, suggesting efficient development practices, yet the absence of key architectural records means new engineers would struggle to understand the 'why' behind current designs, potentially slowing down feature delivery and increasing the likelihood of defects during maintenance.
The primary risk lies in Maturity and Documentation, which scored poorly at 48%. This lens measures whether a new team could pick up the work and whether operational decisions are traceable. Without recorded architectural decisions, the team faces hidden costs in re-learning context and potential misalignment on future changes. Additionally, the Production Readiness is only moderate at 58%, driven by discrepancies between the README and reality, such as advertised Docker and ML features that do not exist. This mismatch creates confusion and wastes time, acting as a barrier to reliable deployment and clear communication with stakeholders.
On the positive side, the code health is excellent at 100%, and security posture is strong at 95%, indicating that the core logic is robust and safe. The architecture is also well-designed at 91%, ensuring that changes do not ripple uncontrollably. To maximize leverage, the team should immediately start recording significant decisions in a centralized, discoverable format. This single action will address the maturity gap, reduce onboarding time, and provide a clear audit trail for future changes, offering the highest return on effort for the lowest cost.
Code Health
100% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
91% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
48%
Adequate · gated by D34, M2
Readiness
58%
Adequate · gated by P3
Security
95% ★
Exemplary
Performance
100% ★
Exemplary
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 48% · 46% weightReadiness 58% · 25% weightArchitecture 91% · 14% weightSecurity 95% · 8% weightCode Health 100% · 4% weightPerformance 100% · 2% weight
Raise Maturity 48 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 63 → ~71.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (3+)
- D22 · Redundant connection logic across client types. Both BlockingClient and Client expose an identical connect method. Since BlockingClient is likely a wrapper or specific implementation of Client, this creates duplication in the public API surface for initialization.
- D22 · Inconsistent construction pattern. BufferedClient uses a static-style method 'buffer' to create an instance, whereas Client and BlockingClient use 'connect'. This breaks the mental model of 'creating a client' across the library.
- D22 · Inconsistent parameter types for subscription. Client and BlockingClient take a single String, while Subscriber takes a slice of Strings (&[String]). This forces users to handle different data structures depending on which client type they are using, even though the intent (subscribing to channels) is the same.
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,400–€7,200
| Cost to rebuild | €1,400–€7,200 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.9× (at 63% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€4,300 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 48% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
2
Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
3
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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 48%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
| depends on → | 1 bin.cli | 2 bin.server | 3 db | 4 frame | 5 shutdown | 6 connection | 7 parse | 8 cmd | 9 cmd.get | 10 cmd.ping | 11 cmd.publish | 12 cmd.set | 13 cmd.subscribe | 14 cmd.unknown | 15 server | 16 clients.client | 17 clients.blocking_client | 18 clients.buffered_client |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 bin.cli | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2 bin.server | ||||||||||||||||||
| 3 db | ||||||||||||||||||
| 4 frame | ||||||||||||||||||
| 5 shutdown | ||||||||||||||||||
| 6 connection | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| 7 parse | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| 8 cmd | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 cmd.get | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 10 cmd.ping | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 11 cmd.publish | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 12 cmd.set | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 13 cmd.subscribe | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||
| 14 cmd.unknown | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| 15 server | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 16 clients.client | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 17 clients.blocking_client | 3 | |||||||||||||||||
| 18 clients.buffered_client | 2 |
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
6→4 connection depends on frame✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in connection → type in frame) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.connection.Connection→mini_redis.frame.Frame
- Direction
- connection uses frame. Changing frame can break connection, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
7→4 parse depends on frame✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in parse → type in frame) references.
- Which types
mini_redis.parse.Parse→mini_redis.frame.Framemini_redis.parse.ParseError→mini_redis.frame.Error
- Direction
- parse uses frame. Changing frame can break parse, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
8→3 cmd depends on db✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd → type in db) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.Command→mini_redis.db.Db
- Direction
- cmd uses db. Changing db can break cmd, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
8→4 cmd depends on frame✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd → type in frame) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.Command→mini_redis.frame.Frame
- Direction
- cmd uses frame. Changing frame can break cmd, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
8→5 cmd depends on shutdown✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd → type in shutdown) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.Command→mini_redis.shutdown.Shutdown
- Direction
- cmd uses shutdown. Changing shutdown can break cmd, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
8→6 cmd depends on connection✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd → type in connection) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.Command→mini_redis.connection.Connection
- Direction
- cmd uses connection. Changing connection can break cmd, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
9→3 cmd.get depends on db✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.get → type in db) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.get.Get→mini_redis.db.Db
- Direction
- cmd.get uses db. Changing db can break cmd.get, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
9→4 cmd.get depends on frame✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.get → type in frame) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.get.Get→mini_redis.frame.Frame
- Direction
- cmd.get uses frame. Changing frame can break cmd.get, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
9→6 cmd.get depends on connection✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.get → type in connection) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.get.Get→mini_redis.connection.Connection
- Direction
- cmd.get uses connection. Changing connection can break cmd.get, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
9→7 cmd.get depends on parse✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.get → type in parse) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.get.Get→mini_redis.parse.Parse
- Direction
- cmd.get uses parse. Changing parse can break cmd.get, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→4 cmd.ping depends on frame✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.ping → type in frame) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.ping.Ping→mini_redis.frame.Frame
- Direction
- cmd.ping uses frame. Changing frame can break cmd.ping, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→6 cmd.ping depends on connection✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.ping → type in connection) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.ping.Ping→mini_redis.connection.Connection
- Direction
- cmd.ping uses connection. Changing connection can break cmd.ping, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→7 cmd.ping depends on parse✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.ping → type in parse) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.ping.Ping→mini_redis.parse.Parse
- Direction
- cmd.ping uses parse. Changing parse can break cmd.ping, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
11→3 cmd.publish depends on db✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.publish → type in db) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.publish.Publish→mini_redis.db.Db
- Direction
- cmd.publish uses db. Changing db can break cmd.publish, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
11→4 cmd.publish depends on frame✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.publish → type in frame) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.publish.Publish→mini_redis.frame.Frame
- Direction
- cmd.publish uses frame. Changing frame can break cmd.publish, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
11→6 cmd.publish depends on connection✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.publish → type in connection) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.publish.Publish→mini_redis.connection.Connection
- Direction
- cmd.publish uses connection. Changing connection can break cmd.publish, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
11→7 cmd.publish depends on parse✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.publish → type in parse) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.publish.Publish→mini_redis.parse.Parse
- Direction
- cmd.publish uses parse. Changing parse can break cmd.publish, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→3 cmd.set depends on db✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.set → type in db) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.set.Set→mini_redis.db.Db
- Direction
- cmd.set uses db. Changing db can break cmd.set, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→4 cmd.set depends on frame✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.set → type in frame) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.set.Set→mini_redis.frame.Frame
- Direction
- cmd.set uses frame. Changing frame can break cmd.set, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→6 cmd.set depends on connection✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.set → type in connection) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.set.Set→mini_redis.connection.Connection
- Direction
- cmd.set uses connection. Changing connection can break cmd.set, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→7 cmd.set depends on parse✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.set → type in parse) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.set.Set→mini_redis.parse.Parse
- Direction
- cmd.set uses parse. Changing parse can break cmd.set, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→3 cmd.subscribe depends on db✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in cmd.subscribe → type in db) references.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.subscribe.Subscribe→mini_redis.db.Dbmini_redis.cmd.subscribe.subscribe$module→mini_redis.db.Db
- Direction
- cmd.subscribe uses db. Changing db can break cmd.subscribe, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→4 cmd.subscribe depends on frame✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in cmd.subscribe → type in frame) references.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.subscribe.Subscribe→mini_redis.frame.Framemini_redis.cmd.subscribe.Unsubscribe→mini_redis.frame.Framemini_redis.cmd.subscribe.subscribe$module→mini_redis.frame.Frame
- Direction
- cmd.subscribe uses frame. Changing frame can break cmd.subscribe, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→5 cmd.subscribe depends on shutdown✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.subscribe → type in shutdown) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.subscribe.Subscribe→mini_redis.shutdown.Shutdown
- Direction
- cmd.subscribe uses shutdown. Changing shutdown can break cmd.subscribe, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→6 cmd.subscribe depends on connection✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in cmd.subscribe → type in connection) references.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.subscribe.Subscribe→mini_redis.connection.Connectionmini_redis.cmd.subscribe.subscribe$module→mini_redis.connection.Connection
- Direction
- cmd.subscribe uses connection. Changing connection can break cmd.subscribe, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→7 cmd.subscribe depends on parse✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in cmd.subscribe → type in parse) references.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.subscribe.Subscribe→mini_redis.parse.Parsemini_redis.cmd.subscribe.Unsubscribe→mini_redis.parse.Parse
- Direction
- cmd.subscribe uses parse. Changing parse can break cmd.subscribe, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
14→6 cmd.unknown depends on connection✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cmd.unknown → type in connection) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.cmd.unknown.Unknown→mini_redis.connection.Connection
- Direction
- cmd.unknown uses connection. Changing connection can break cmd.unknown, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
15→3 server depends on db✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in server → type in db) references.
- Which types
mini_redis.server.Handler→mini_redis.db.Dbmini_redis.server.Listener→mini_redis.db.DbDropGuard
- Direction
- server uses db. Changing db can break server, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
15→5 server depends on shutdown✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in server → type in shutdown) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.server.Handler→mini_redis.shutdown.Shutdown
- Direction
- server uses shutdown. Changing shutdown can break server, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
15→6 server depends on connection✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in server → type in connection) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.server.Handler→mini_redis.connection.Connection
- Direction
- server uses connection. Changing connection can break server, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
16→6 clients.client depends on connection✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in clients.client → type in connection) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.clients.client.Client→mini_redis.connection.Connection
- Direction
- clients.client uses connection. Changing connection can break clients.client, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
16→12 clients.client depends on cmd.set✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in clients.client → type in cmd.set) reference.
- Which types
mini_redis.clients.client.Client→mini_redis.cmd.set.Set
- Direction
- clients.client uses cmd.set. Changing cmd.set can break clients.client, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
17→16 clients.blocking_client depends on clients.client✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in clients.blocking_client → type in clients.client) references.
- Which types
mini_redis.clients.blocking_client.BlockingClient→mini_redis.clients.client.Clientmini_redis.clients.blocking_client.BlockingSubscriber→mini_redis.clients.client.Subscribermini_redis.clients.blocking_client.SubscriberIterator→mini_redis.clients.client.Subscriber
- Direction
- clients.blocking_client uses clients.client. Changing clients.client can break clients.blocking_client, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→16 clients.buffered_client depends on clients.client✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in clients.buffered_client → type in clients.client) references.
- Which types
mini_redis.clients.buffered_client.BufferedClient→mini_redis.clients.client.Clientmini_redis.clients.buffered_client.buffered_client$module→mini_redis.clients.client.Client
- Direction
- clients.buffered_client uses clients.client. Changing clients.client can break clients.buffered_client, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Security
The Good
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 10 | Medium |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 1 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by establishing a formal architecture decision record system to document key design choices and their consequences, ensuring all such records are centralized in a standard directory structure. Simultaneously, correct critical documentation inaccuracies by aligning the README with the actual codebase, specifically removing references to non-existent Docker and ML capabilities, and add a high-level architecture overview to the root README. Finally, implement a changelog to track release history, ensuring that every shipped version is clearly recorded for future reference.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +10.6 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +8.2 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| 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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). | +14.0 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists; README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists. | +12.3 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +9.4 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape. | +9.0 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. | +1.9 pts | Low | Bus Factor |
| Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. | +1.9 pts | Low | Bus Factor |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 5.8 | Mixed | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| src/clients/client.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: Subscriber::unsubscribe (cognitive 16) |
How the grades work
Critical — 1
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 15
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Minor — 11
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 40
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 32 of 36 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 36 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D6D9D11D13D15D16D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D30D34D35D43AX10AX3AX4AX9M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P6PF3
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 12 of 27 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 12 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, which could not be reached on this run, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
- AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- 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.
- 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").
- 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.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- 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.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- 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
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
1 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Subscriber::unsubscribe at 16.
Subscriber::unsubscribe (cognitive 16)src/clients/client.rs:460
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Subscriber finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with client.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 16 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
15 test methods: 0 unit, 15 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 15 `#[test]` function(s) across 4 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 4 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.
What to do
- Improve Test Distribution — currently 8.5/10. — 15 test methods: 0 unit, 15 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 15 `#[test]` function(s) across 4 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 4 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Rust (repository root, 4 test files): measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
3 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/clients/blocking_client.rs. Counted over 12 of the 18 production source files in this repository: 4 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 2 have no attributable history left to measure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted task-comment markers across 3213 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README is clear and complete for its role as the overview document: it states what mini-redis is (an incomplete idiomatic Redis client/server built with Tokio), its purpose (a learning resource that omits production-ready features), a disclaimer about not using it in production, why Redis was chosen over alternatives, how to run the server and examples, an OpenTelemetry section, and ends with a clipped but fully outlined list of topics. It is well written for an overview document.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README is clear and complete for its role as the overview document: it states what mini-redis is (an incomplete idiomatic Redis client/server built with Tokio), its purpose (a learning resource that omits production-ready features), a disclaimer about not using it in production, why Redis was chosen over alternatives, how to run the server and examples, an OpenTelemetry section, and ends with a clipped but fully outlined list of topics. It is well written for an overview document.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
No ADRs found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API Consistency
3 API inconsistencies across 18 exposed types.
Redundant connection logic across client types. Both BlockingClient and Client expose an identical connect method. Since BlockingClient is likely a wrapper or specific implementation of Client, this creates duplication in the public API surface for initialization.
Inconsistent construction pattern. BufferedClient uses a static-style method 'buffer' to create an instance, whereas Client and BlockingClient use 'connect'. This breaks the mental model of 'creating a client' across the library.
Inconsistent parameter types for subscription. Client and BlockingClient take a single String, while Subscriber takes a slice of Strings (&[String]). This forces users to handle different data structures depending on which client type they are using, even though the intent (subscribing to channels) is the same.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Redundant connection logic across client types. Both BlockingClient and… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Inconsistent construction pattern. BufferedClient uses a static-style… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Inconsistent parameter types for subscription. Client and BlockingClient… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 1 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens.
REDACTED
What to do
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 1 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
10 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 10 medium, 0 low.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
10 of 14 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/clients/client.rs. Counted over 14 of the 18 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Orphaned files with no living knowledge
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
- No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
- README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists — searched for: `rag`, `langchain`, `llamaindex`, `pinecone`, `weaviate`, `qdrant`, `embeddings`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists; README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
What to do
- Add a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 631 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 91% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 48% | Adequate — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 58% | Adequate — gated by P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 95% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Performance | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 78 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~578 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 12 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, which could not be reached on this run, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 159 shipped crate(s) were read from its REDACTED, but crates.io could not be asked for the licence of 30 of them (HTTP 429 Unknown Error), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- 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.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
- D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this Cargo build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `#[bench]`, criterion's `bench_function`/`bench_with_input`, `#[divan::bench]` or `#[library_benchmark]` in any `.rs` file, or criterion, divan, iai or a `[[bench]]` target in a Cargo.toml, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 1 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
Serious — 15 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Subscriber::unsubscribe (cognitive 16) src/clients/client.rs:460
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- Redundant connection logic across client types. Both BlockingClient and Client expose an identical connect method. Since BlockingClient is likely a wrapper or specific implementation of Client, this creates duplication in the public API surface for initialization.
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- Inconsistent construction pattern. BufferedClient uses a static-style method 'buffer' to create an instance, whereas Client and BlockingClient use 'connect'. This breaks the mental model of 'creating a client' across the library.
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- Inconsistent parameter types for subscription. Client and BlockingClient take a single String, while Subscriber takes a slice of Strings (&[String]). This forces users to handle different data structures depending on which client type they are using, even though the intent (subscribing to channels) is the same.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
Minor — 11 finding(s)
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README/code drift
- README/code drift
D16 · Bus Factor
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
D16 · Bus Factor
- Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned files with no living knowledge
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No ADRs
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No architecture diagram/doc
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No SAST
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No changelog
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-9a7be1045783498c9713089970bd04c9/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-9a7be1045783498c9713089970bd04c9/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 1 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 10 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 0 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |