Public report — LibOptimization, published 8 Aug 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 08-08-2026 @ 00:21 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Tomitomi3/LibOptimization

coverage not measuredno automated testsbounded contexts not declared
46% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
upper third — near Adequate
Architecture 92% Adequate Security 89% Strong Performance 70% Adequate Code Health 64% Adequate Maturity 39% Weak Readiness 33% Weak

Hobby · 440 LoC · 13 projects · weakest lens: Readiness (33%)

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

39/42dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
158findings with an exact file:lineof 176 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
42/92dimensions across the health lenses440 LoC · 13 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

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

tomitomi3/LibOptimization carries serious gaps (46%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.

It is strongest in Architecture (92%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (89%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (33%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (39%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution (Test Distribution); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation).

For scale: Hobby (~440 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (92%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 64% Adequate · gated by D2, D18, IC1 Architecture 92% Adequate · gated by D35 Maturity 39% Weak · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 33% Weak · gated by D9, P1, P3 Security 89% Strong Performance 70% Adequate
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.
Readiness 33% · 46% weightMaturity 39% · 25% weightCode Health 64% · 14% weightPerformance 70% · 8% weightSecurity 89% · 4% weightArchitecture 92% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 33 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 46 → ~55.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 23%Plumbing 20%Tests 9%Generated 48%
New since the last scan (35+)

35 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-08-03) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D4 · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) SampleCSharp/Program.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNewtonMethod.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb
  • D8 · Coverage not measured
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsOptPSOAIW.vb ↔ clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsOptRealGAREX.vb ↔ clsOptRealGASPX.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsOptPSOAIW.vb ↔ clsOptPSOLDIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb ↔ clsOptPSOLDIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsOptPSO.vb ↔ clsOptPSOAIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsOptPSO.vb ↔ clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsOptRealGABLX.vb ↔ clsOptRealGASPX.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsOptPSO.vb ↔ clsOptPSOLDIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsBenchDeJongFunction1.vb ↔ clsBenchDeJongFunction2.vb LibOptimization/BenchmarkFunctions/clsBenchDeJongFunction1.vb
  • D35 · Change coupling: clsOptRealGABLX.vb ↔ clsOptRealGAREX.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb
  • IC1 · Skeleton type — most members are unfinished SampleCSharp/Program.cs
  • IC1 · Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work SampleCSharp/Program.cs
  • IC1 · Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work SampleCSharp/Program.cs
  • IC1 · Skeleton type — most members are unfinished SampleCSharp/RosenBrock.cs
  • IC1 · Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work SampleCSharp/RosenBrock.cs
  • IC1 · Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work SampleCSharp/RosenBrock.cs
  • IC1 · Skeleton type — most members are unfinished SampleCSharp/SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs
  • IC1 · Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work SampleCSharp/SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs
  • IC1 · Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work SampleCSharp/SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €300–€1,600
Cost to rebuild€300–€1,600 (0.1 person-years (5–16 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 46% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeHobby · 33% boilerplate · 14% straight-line · 53% branching logic

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — library/CLI, high decision density × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
+10.8 pts · Low effort · Test Distribution
2
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
+7.3 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness
3
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
+6.3 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

At a glance — Code Health · 64% · Adequate · gated by D2, D18, IC1

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 7.8 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.8 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 8.9 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 8.4 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0
The Ugly
D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 2.0 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 2.6 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 92% · Adequate · gated by D35

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.4 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.3 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0
The Ugly
D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 2.8

At a glance — Maturity · 39% · Weak · gated by D34, M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 7.5 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 7.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.0
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 2.5 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 4.0

At a glance — Readiness · 33% · Weak · gated by D9, P1, P3

The Good
D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0
The Ugly
P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 89% · Strong

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0
The Bad
D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 6.8

At a glance — Performance · 70% · Adequate

The Good
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0
The Bad
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components8High / Critical

Roadmap

First, establish a CI/CD pipeline to automatically build and test every change. Next, address the missing test coverage to ensure code quality. Then, begin documenting key architectural decisions and organize the project structure to separate production code from tooling. Finally, update the README with a quick-start guide to help new contributors get started.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.+10.8 ptsLowTest Distribution
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.+7.3 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+6.3 ptsLowADR Quality
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+11.6 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Resolve the 1 Typo in type name finding(s) in Naming Consistency.+4.8 ptsLowNaming Consistency
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+8.9 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.+8.9 ptsMediumFolder & project structure
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.+7.8 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 37 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 3% slop · 56% mixed · 41% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb2.2SlopExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb4.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: clsOptPSO.DoIteration (cyclomatic 20)
LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb4.8MixedCognitive Complexity: DenseVector.PrintValue (cognitive 16)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb5.5MixedCognitive Complexity: clsOptPSOAIW.DoIteration (cognitive 22)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb5.5MixedCognitive Complexity: clsOptRealGABLX.DoIteration (cognitive 21)
LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb6.0MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb6.3MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb7.0MixedCognitive Complexity: clsOptPSOChaoticIW.DoIteration (cognitive 25)
SampleCSharp/Program.cs7.0MixedCognitive Complexity: Program.Main (cognitive 18)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: clsOptDE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 38)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb7.1MixedCyclomatic Complexity: clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 23)
TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb7.1MixedCognitive Complexity: UnitTestLibOptimization.Opt_IterationCount (cognitive 16)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb7.2MixedCognitive Complexity: clsOptNelderMead.DoIteration (cognitive 32)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptES.vb7.4MixedCyclomatic Complexity: clsOptES.Init (cyclomatic 20)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOCPSO.vb7.4MixedCyclomatic Complexity: clsOptPSOCPSO.DoIteration (cyclomatic 16)
TestCode/Module1.vb7.4MixedCognitive Complexity: clsBenchmark.DisplayStatic (cognitive 30)
LibOptimization/MathTool/MathUtil.vb7.4MixedCognitive Complexity: MathUtil.CreateRandomSymmetricMatrix (cognitive 25)
LibOptimization/Util/clsUtil.vb7.4MixedCognitive Complexity: clsUtil.RandomPermutaion (cognitive 21)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptCS.vb7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: clsOptCS.DoIteration (cyclomatic 18)
LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMeadANMS.vb7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: clsOptNelderMeadANMS.DoIteration (cyclomatic 16)

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. 39 of 42 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 42 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D12D13D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D28D29D30D34D35AX10AX3AX4AX5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P3PF1PF2PF3X1X3X4

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 158 of 176 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fdebe-be2f-75f9-a3cd-69e2b558fc67.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • 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.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • 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 (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D20, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

14 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was clsOptDE.DoIteration at 38.

clsOptDE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 38)LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:206
UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Vec_Product_VectorMatrix (cyclomatic 24)TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:496
clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 23)LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb:171
clsOptES.Init (cyclomatic 20)LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptES.vb:82
clsOptPSO.DoIteration (cyclomatic 20)LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb:169

+ 9 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 clsOptDE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 38) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with clsOptDE.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Vec_Product_VectorMatrix (cyclomatic 24) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 23) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with clsOptDEJADE.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

42 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was clsOptDE.DoIteration at 99.

clsOptDE.DoIteration (cognitive 99)LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:206
clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration (cognitive 60)LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb:171
DenseMatrix.tred2 (cognitive 59)LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1430
clsOptPSO.DoIteration (cognitive 52)LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb:169
clsBenchRosenblock.Hessian (cognitive 43)LibOptimization/BenchmarkFunctions/clsBenchRosenblock.vb:72

+ 37 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 clsOptDE.DoIteration (cognitive 99) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with clsOptDE.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration (cognitive 60) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with clsOptDEJADE.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 DenseMatrix.tred2 (cognitive 59) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DenseMatrix.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

4 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: DenseMatrix · ×4LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:0
FileTooLong: MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb · ×3LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:0

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with DenseMatrix.vb, DenseVector.vb, UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with DenseMatrix.vb, UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb, clsUtil.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D4 · Code Duplication8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

36 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×4TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:671
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:759
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:227
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3LibOptimization/MathTool/MathUtil.vb:62
Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) · ×2TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:279

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with UnitTestLibOptimization.vb (2), UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb (2), clsOptNewtonMethod.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with clsOptNelderMead.vb, clsOptNewtonMethod.vb, clsOptRealGAREX.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D5 · Coupling9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

Off the main sequence: LibOptimization(net35)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

14 of 258 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: DenseVector (LCOM4 14) · ×14LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:8

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No test projects found.

No tests found

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is SampleCSharp/Program.cs.

Small-team knowledge concentration

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Small-team knowledge concentration finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D17 · Explicit Debt8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

15 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 14733 LoC (0.8/KLoC) → score 8.4.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×13TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:114
ObsoleteWithCallersLibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1294
CommentedOutCodeSampleCSharp/SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs:125

What to do

  1. Resolve the 13 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb (13). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 ObsoleteWithCallers finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DenseMatrix.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D18 · Solution Shape2.6 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

13 projects, 4 .cs files, 14829 hand-written lines of code (14733 production / 96 test), plus 503 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 6 inter-project edges (build failed).

Shell project: SampleVB · ×12SampleVB/SampleVB.vbproj
Build did not complete in the analyzer

What to do

  1. Resolve the 12 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with LibOptimization.vbproj (7), SampleVB.vbproj, TestCode.vbproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 recommendation-level).

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The single README is a strong documentation set for the LibOptimization numerical optimization library: it includes an excellent English description of what the library does and which algorithms are implemented (including a detailed list of algorithms with their Wikipedia references), links to a tutorial, contact information, a citation format, a recent-change note, and an Introduction section. The document is clipped mid-sentence in the middle of the Algorithms section, so the full outline is visible but not the body; this does not make any sections missing or incomplete. It reads like a well-structured product description for a library rather than a technical reference.

XML-doc coverage: SampleVB · ×6SampleVB/SampleVB.vbproj

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The single README is a strong documentation set for the LibOptimization numerical optimization library: it includes an excellent English description of what the library does and which algorithms are implemented (including a detailed list of algorithms with their Wikipedia references), links to a tutorial, contact information, a citation format, a recent-change note, and an Introduction section. The document is clipped mid-sentence in the middle of the Algorithms section, so the full outline is visible but not the body; this does not make any sections missing or incomplete. It reads like a well-structured product description for a library rather than a technical reference.

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

1 naming inconsistencies across 28 sampled symbols.

Typo in type name: 'Objectice' vs 'Objective'. The first appears to be a misspelling of the second.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Typo in type name finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

16 valuable / 2 redundant across 77 sampled comments; 2 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×2SampleCSharp/Program.cs:156

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

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

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

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

0 of 7 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

8 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 4 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 · ×4detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 · ×4detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).

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

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

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

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

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

2 of 2 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is SampleCSharp/Program.cs.

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling2.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: clsOptPSOAIW.vb↔clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb 78%; clsOptRealGAREX.vb↔clsOptRealGASPX.vb 78%; clsOptPSOAIW.vb↔clsOptPSOLDIW.vb 76%

Change coupling: clsOptPSOAIW.vb ↔ clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb · ×10LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with clsOptPSO.vb (3), clsOptPSOAIW.vb (2), clsOptRealGABLX.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

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

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

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — RosenBrock.cs:23

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `MyObjectiveFunction` has 2 unfinished members out of 4 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — Program.cs:14
  • `Gradient` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. (×3) — Program.cs:61, RosenBrock.cs:40, SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs:39
  • `Hessian` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. (×3) — Program.cs:66, RosenBrock.cs:45, SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs:44
  • `RosenBrock` has 2 unfinished members out of 4 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — RosenBrock.cs:11
  • `MyObjecticeFunctionForSA` has 2 unfinished members out of 4 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. — SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs:14
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×4) — Program.cs:251, SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs:125, SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs:126, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 7 of 7 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
  • No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
  • Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
  • Only 7/13 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
  • Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No BenchmarkDotNet suite was found. For a performance-sensitive library, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

  • Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's GC — Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

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

  • No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this library sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it puts on its host — a bonus, not a requirement.

What to do

  • On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut allocations a consumer would otherwise inherit.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health64%Adequate — gated by D2, D18, IC1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture92%Adequate — gated by D35Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity39%Weak — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness33%Weak — gated by D9, P1, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security89%StrongStrongest area.
Performance70%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Not included — 51 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~87 lines of test code exist on disk but weren't loaded from the analyzed solution (excluded from the .sln, or co-located/using a test attribute not loaded here), so test quality couldn't be assessed. Include the tests in the analyzed solution to enable this check.
  • D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • 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, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
  • X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 17 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×13
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:114 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:131 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:234 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:251 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:685 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:749 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1246 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1389 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1399 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1409 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1419 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1450 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1480 — empty catch block
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×4
  • High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 (direct) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 (direct) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 (direct) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 (direct) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Warning — 131 finding(s)
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×14
  • Low cohesion: DenseVector (LCOM4 14) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:8 — DenseVector's methods form 14 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseVector (LCOM4 14) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:8 — DenseVector's methods form 14 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseVector (LCOM4 14) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:8 — DenseVector's methods form 14 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseVector (LCOM4 14) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:8 — DenseVector's methods form 14 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseVector (LCOM4 14) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:8 — DenseVector's methods form 14 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseVector (LCOM4 14) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:8 — DenseVector's methods form 14 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseVector (LCOM4 14) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:8 — DenseVector's methods form 14 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseMatrix (LCOM4 6) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:9 — DenseMatrix's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseMatrix (LCOM4 6) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:9 — DenseMatrix's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseMatrix (LCOM4 6) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:9 — DenseMatrix's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseMatrix (LCOM4 6) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:9 — DenseMatrix's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseMatrix (LCOM4 6) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:9 — DenseMatrix's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseMatrix (LCOM4 6) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:9 — DenseMatrix's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DenseMatrix (LCOM4 6) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:9 — DenseMatrix's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×10
  • Change coupling: clsOptPSOAIW.vb ↔ clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb — `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb` and `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb` change together 78% of the time (18 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: clsOptRealGAREX.vb ↔ clsOptRealGASPX.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb — `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb` and `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGASPX.vb` change together 78% of the time (25 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: clsOptPSOAIW.vb ↔ clsOptPSOLDIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb — `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb` and `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOLDIW.vb` change together 76% of the time (16 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb ↔ clsOptPSOLDIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb — `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb` and `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOLDIW.vb` change together 76% of the time (16 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: clsOptPSO.vb ↔ clsOptPSOAIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb — `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb` and `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb` change together 74% of the time (17 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: clsOptPSO.vb ↔ clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb — `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb` and `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb` change together 74% of the time (17 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: clsOptRealGABLX.vb ↔ clsOptRealGASPX.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb — `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb` and `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGASPX.vb` change together 74% of the time (14 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: clsOptPSO.vb ↔ clsOptPSOLDIW.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb — `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb` and `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOLDIW.vb` change together 71% of the time (15 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: clsBenchDeJongFunction1.vb ↔ clsBenchDeJongFunction2.vb LibOptimization/BenchmarkFunctions/clsBenchDeJongFunction1.vb — `LibOptimization/BenchmarkFunctions/clsBenchDeJongFunction1.vb` and `LibOptimization/BenchmarkFunctions/clsBenchDeJongFunction2.vb` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: clsOptRealGABLX.vb ↔ clsOptRealGAREX.vb LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb — `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb` and `LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb` change together 68% of the time (13 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×4
  • TooManyMethods: DenseMatrix LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:0 — TooManyMethods — 990 lines, 55 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: DenseVector LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:0 — TooManyMethods — 308 lines, 32 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: clsUtil LibOptimization/Util/clsUtil.vb:0 — TooManyMethods — 524 lines, 31 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: UnitTestLinearAlgebra TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:0 — TooManyMethods — 1076 lines, 32 methods.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×4
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:671 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:671-687 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:735-751
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:970 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:970-984 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:996-1012
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:180 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:180-196 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:202-212
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:324 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:324-340 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:343-359
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×3
  • FileTooLong: MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:0 — FileTooLong — 992 lines.
  • FileTooLong: Util/clsUtil.vb LibOptimization/Util/clsUtil.vb:0 — FileTooLong — 529 lines.
  • FileTooLong: TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:0 — FileTooLong — 1079 lines.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:759 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:759-770 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:792-803
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1100 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1100-1110 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1115-1126
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNewtonMethod.vb:103 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNewtonMethod.vb:103-114 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptSteepestDescent.vb:104-115
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:227 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:227-237 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMeadWiki.vb:218-228
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNewtonMethod.vb:76 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNewtonMethod.vb:76-84 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptSteepestDescent.vb:76-86
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb:190 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb:190-200 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGASPX.vb:187-197
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) LibOptimization/MathTool/MathUtil.vb:62 — LibOptimization/MathTool/MathUtil.vb:62-71 | LibOptimization/MathTool/MathUtil.vb:113-122
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:252 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:252-261 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:300-309
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb:158 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb:158-166 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGASPX.vb:154-163
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:279 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:279-299 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:311-332 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:501-521
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:578 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:578-599 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:609-629 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:639-658
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) SampleVB/Module1.vb:42 — SampleVB/Module1.vb:42-62 | SampleVB/Module1.vb:63-83
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:338 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:338-358 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:366-386
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:194 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:194-211 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:212-228
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:221 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:221-235 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb:185-202
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:259 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:259-273 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:283-297
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) TestCode/Module1.vb:205 — TestCode/Module1.vb:205-219 | TestCode/Module1.vb:234-248
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:33 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:33-46 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:55-68
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1388 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1388-1401 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1408-1421
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:579 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:579-584 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:585-589
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:267 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:267-272 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:317-322
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clsOptDE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 38) · ×1
  • clsOptDE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 38) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:206 — clsOptDE.DoIteration has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Vec_Product_VectorMatrix (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Vec_Product_VectorMatrix (cyclomatic 24) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:496 — UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Vec_Product_VectorMatrix has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration (cyclomatic 23) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb:171 — clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clsOptES.Init (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • clsOptES.Init (cyclomatic 20) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptES.vb:82 — clsOptES.Init has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clsOptPSO.DoIteration (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • clsOptPSO.DoIteration (cyclomatic 20) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb:169 — clsOptPSO.DoIteration has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Product_MatrixVector (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Product_MatrixVector (cyclomatic 19) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:274 — UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Product_MatrixVector has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DenseMatrix.LUP (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • DenseMatrix.LUP (cyclomatic 19) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1139 — DenseMatrix.LUP has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DenseMatrix.tred2 (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • DenseMatrix.tred2 (cyclomatic 18) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1430 — DenseMatrix.tred2 has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clsOptCS.DoIteration (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • clsOptCS.DoIteration (cyclomatic 18) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptCS.vb:138 — clsOptCS.DoIteration has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clsOptDE.Init (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • clsOptDE.Init (cyclomatic 18) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:128 — clsOptDE.Init has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clsOptDEJADE.Init (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • clsOptDEJADE.Init (cyclomatic 18) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb:89 — clsOptDEJADE.Init has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DenseMatrix.Inverse (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • DenseMatrix.Inverse (cyclomatic 17) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1056 — DenseMatrix.Inverse has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clsOptNelderMeadANMS.DoIteration (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • clsOptNelderMeadANMS.DoIteration (cyclomatic 16) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMeadANMS.vb:130 — clsOptNelderMeadANMS.DoIteration has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · clsOptPSOCPSO.DoIteration (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • clsOptPSOCPSO.DoIteration (cyclomatic 16) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOCPSO.vb:168 — clsOptPSOCPSO.DoIteration has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithCallers · ×1
  • ObsoleteWithCallers LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1294 — <Obsolete> EigenJacobi
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×1
  • CommentedOutCode SampleCSharp/SimulatedAnnealingSample.cs:125 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptDE.DoIteration (cognitive 99) · ×1
  • clsOptDE.DoIteration (cognitive 99) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:206 — clsOptDE.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 99 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration (cognitive 60) · ×1
  • clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration (cognitive 60) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb:171 — clsOptDEJADE.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DenseMatrix.tred2 (cognitive 59) · ×1
  • DenseMatrix.tred2 (cognitive 59) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1430 — DenseMatrix.tred2 has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptPSO.DoIteration (cognitive 52) · ×1
  • clsOptPSO.DoIteration (cognitive 52) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb:169 — clsOptPSO.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsBenchRosenblock.Hessian (cognitive 43) · ×1
  • clsBenchRosenblock.Hessian (cognitive 43) LibOptimization/BenchmarkFunctions/clsBenchRosenblock.vb:72 — clsBenchRosenblock.Hessian has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptCS.DoIteration (cognitive 40) · ×1
  • clsOptCS.DoIteration (cognitive 40) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptCS.vb:138 — clsOptCS.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DenseMatrix.LUP (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • DenseMatrix.LUP (cognitive 37) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1139 — DenseMatrix.LUP has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DenseMatrix.tqli (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • DenseMatrix.tqli (cognitive 37) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1544 — DenseMatrix.tqli has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptPSOCPSO.DoIteration (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • clsOptPSOCPSO.DoIteration (cognitive 37) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOCPSO.vb:168 — clsOptPSOCPSO.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptNelderMeadANMS.DoIteration (cognitive 33) · ×1
  • clsOptNelderMeadANMS.DoIteration (cognitive 33) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMeadANMS.vb:130 — clsOptNelderMeadANMS.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DenseMatrix.Inverse (cognitive 32) · ×1
  • DenseMatrix.Inverse (cognitive 32) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1056 — DenseMatrix.Inverse has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptNelderMead.DoIteration (cognitive 32) · ×1
  • clsOptNelderMead.DoIteration (cognitive 32) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:126 — clsOptNelderMead.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptES.Init (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • clsOptES.Init (cognitive 31) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptES.vb:82 — clsOptES.Init has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsBenchmark.DisplayStatic (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • clsBenchmark.DisplayStatic (cognitive 30) TestCode/Module1.vb:74 — clsBenchmark.DisplayStatic has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptDE.Init (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • clsOptDE.Init (cognitive 29) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:128 — clsOptDE.Init has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptDEJADE.Init (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • clsOptDEJADE.Init (cognitive 29) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb:89 — clsOptDEJADE.Init has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Vec_Product_VectorMatrix (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Vec_Product_VectorMatrix (cognitive 27) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:496 — UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Vec_Product_VectorMatrix has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Module1.BenchmarkLU (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • Module1.BenchmarkLU (cognitive 27) TestCode/Module1.vb:184 — Module1.BenchmarkLU has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MathUtil.CreateRandomSymmetricMatrix (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • MathUtil.CreateRandomSymmetricMatrix (cognitive 25) LibOptimization/MathTool/MathUtil.vb:51 — MathUtil.CreateRandomSymmetricMatrix has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptFA.DoIteration (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • clsOptFA.DoIteration (cognitive 25) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptFA.vb:147 — clsOptFA.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptPSOChaoticIW.DoIteration (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • clsOptPSOChaoticIW.DoIteration (cognitive 25) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb:151 — clsOptPSOChaoticIW.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Inverse (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Inverse (cognitive 24) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:960 — UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Inverse has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptNelderMeadWiki.DoIteration (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • clsOptNelderMeadWiki.DoIteration (cognitive 24) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMeadWiki.vb:125 — clsOptNelderMeadWiki.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MathUtil.CreateRandomASymmetricMatrix (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • MathUtil.CreateRandomASymmetricMatrix (cognitive 22) LibOptimization/MathTool/MathUtil.vb:101 — MathUtil.CreateRandomASymmetricMatrix has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptPSOAIW.DoIteration (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • clsOptPSOAIW.DoIteration (cognitive 22) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb:140 — clsOptPSOAIW.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Product_MatrixVector (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Product_MatrixVector (cognitive 21) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:274 — UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Product_MatrixVector has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptPSOLDIW.DoIteration (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • clsOptPSOLDIW.DoIteration (cognitive 21) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOLDIW.vb:149 — clsOptPSOLDIW.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptRealGABLX.DoIteration (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • clsOptRealGABLX.DoIteration (cognitive 21) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb:126 — clsOptRealGABLX.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsUtil.RandomPermutaion (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • clsUtil.RandomPermutaion (cognitive 21) LibOptimization/Util/clsUtil.vb:37 — clsUtil.RandomPermutaion has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptPSO.Init (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • clsOptPSO.Init (cognitive 20) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSO.vb:87 — clsOptPSO.Init has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptPSOCPSO.Init (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • clsOptPSOCPSO.Init (cognitive 20) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOCPSO.vb:77 — clsOptPSOCPSO.Init has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DenseMatrix.EigenJacobi (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • DenseMatrix.EigenJacobi (cognitive 19) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1294 — DenseMatrix.EigenJacobi has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptSimulatedAnnealing.DoIteration (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • clsOptSimulatedAnnealing.DoIteration (cognitive 19) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptSimulatedAnnealing.vb:149 — clsOptSimulatedAnnealing.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Program.Main (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • Program.Main (cognitive 18) SampleCSharp/Program.cs:79 — Program.Main has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_CreateMatrix (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_CreateMatrix (cognitive 18) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:28 — UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_CreateMatrix has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptRealGAPCX.CrossoverPCX (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • clsOptRealGAPCX.CrossoverPCX (cognitive 18) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAPCX.vb:251 — clsOptRealGAPCX.CrossoverPCX has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptRealGAUNDX.SelectRoulette (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • clsOptRealGAUNDX.SelectRoulette (cognitive 18) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAUNDX.vb:205 — clsOptRealGAUNDX.SelectRoulette has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Product_MatrixMatrix (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Product_MatrixMatrix (cognitive 16) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:824 — UnitTestLinearAlgebra.Mat_Product_MatrixMatrix has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitTestLibOptimization.Opt_IterationCount (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • UnitTestLibOptimization.Opt_IterationCount (cognitive 16) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLibOptimization.vb:309 — UnitTestLibOptimization.Opt_IterationCount has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DenseMatrix.Cholesky (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • DenseMatrix.Cholesky (cognitive 16) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseMatrix.vb:1245 — DenseMatrix.Cholesky has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DenseVector.PrintValue (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • DenseVector.PrintValue (cognitive 16) LibOptimization/MathTool/DenseVector.vb:383 — DenseVector.PrintValue has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · clsOptES.DoIteration (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • clsOptES.DoIteration (cognitive 16) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptES.vb:168 — clsOptES.DoIteration has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) SampleCSharp/Program.cs:158 — SampleCSharp/Program.cs:158-180 | SampleCSharp/Program.cs:191-214
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb:138 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb:138-155 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAPCX.vb:142-161 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGASPX.vb:146-163
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1138 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1138-1149 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:1162-1181
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:437 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:437-452 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:460-478
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb:173 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDEJADE.vb:173-189 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptHillClimbing.vb:103-118 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPatternSearch.vb:97-112 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptSimulatedAnnealing.vb:151-166
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:138 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:138-154 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMeadANMS.vb:144-157 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMeadWiki.vb:137-153
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 8) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 8) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptFA.vb:149 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptFA.vb:149-164 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMead.vb:128-143 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptNelderMeadWiki.vb:127-142 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGABLX.vb:128-143 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAPCX.vb:132-147 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGAREX.vb:140-155 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptRealGASPX.vb:136-151 | LibOptimization/Optimization/Template/clsOptTemplate.vb:107-122
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb:142 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOAIW.vb:142-157 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOChaoticIW.vb:153-168 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOCPSO.vb:170-185 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptPSOLDIW.vb:151-166
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:773 — TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:773-785 | TestLibOptimization/UnitTestLinearAlgebra.vb:806-818
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:257 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:257-264 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:297-304 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:307-314
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:278 — LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:278-284 | LibOptimization/Optimization/clsOptDE.vb:288-294
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: LibOptimization(net35) — LibOptimization(net35): abstractness 0.04, instability 0.00, distance 0.96 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 20 finding(s)
D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×12
  • Shell project: SampleVB SampleVB/SampleVB.vbproj — `SampleVB` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: TestLibOptimization TestLibOptimization/TestLibOptimization.vbproj — `TestLibOptimization` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: TestCode TestCode/TestCode.vbproj — `TestCode` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: TestLibOptimizationDotNet3.5 TestLibOptimizationDotNet3.5/TestLibOptimizationDotNet3.5.vbproj — `TestLibOptimizationDotNet3.5` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: LibOptimization(net35) LibOptimization/LibOptimization.vbproj — `LibOptimization(net35)` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: LibOptimization(net48) LibOptimization/LibOptimization.vbproj — `LibOptimization(net48)` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: LibOptimization(netcoreapp2.1) LibOptimization/LibOptimization.vbproj — `LibOptimization(netcoreapp2.1)` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: LibOptimization(netcoreapp3.0) LibOptimization/LibOptimization.vbproj — `LibOptimization(netcoreapp3.0)` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: LibOptimization(netcoreapp3.1) LibOptimization/LibOptimization.vbproj — `LibOptimization(netcoreapp3.1)` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: LibOptimization(net5.0) LibOptimization/LibOptimization.vbproj — `LibOptimization(net5.0)` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: LibOptimization( net8.0) LibOptimization/LibOptimization.vbproj — `LibOptimization( net8.0)` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: TestLibOptimizationDotNetCore TestLibOptimizationDotNetCore/TestLibOptimizationDotNetCore.vbproj — `TestLibOptimizationDotNetCore` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×2
  • redundant comment SampleCSharp/Program.cs:156 — "move initial position" — restates 'Init'; remove or replace with WHY (e.g. why this is the starting point)
  • redundant comment SampleCSharp/Program.cs:96 — "Optimization problem using MyObjectiveFunction" — mirrors 'min f(x)'; remove or replace with WHY (e.g. why this objective)
D16 · Bus Factor · Small-team knowledge concentration · ×1
  • Small-team knowledge concentration — 2 file(s) are concentrated to one author — the ambient state with 2 active author(s), not 2 separate risks. The signal becomes meaningful as ownership spreads; no per-file action implied now.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D21 · Naming Consistency · Typo in type name · ×1
  • Typo in type name: 'Objectice' vs 'Objective'. The first appears to be a misspelling of the second. — Rename 'MyObjecticeFunctionForSA' to 'MyObjectiveFunctionForSA' to match the correct spelling and the other type 'MyObjectiveFunction'. (symbols: SampleCSharp.MyObjecticeFunctionForSA, SampleCSharp.MyObjectiveFunction)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 14k LoC across 13 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 2 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than listed individually (2 orphaned of 2 analysed files in total).
D9 · Test Distribution · No tests found · ×1
  • No tests found — No test projects found in the repository.
Info — 8 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×6
  • XML-doc coverage: SampleVB SampleVB/SampleVB.vbproj — SampleVB: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
  • XML-doc coverage: SampleCSharp SampleCSharp/SampleCSharp.csproj — SampleCSharp: 30 % XML-doc coverage (6/20).
  • XML-doc coverage: TestLibOptimization TestLibOptimization/TestLibOptimization.vbproj — TestLibOptimization: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
  • XML-doc coverage: TestCode TestCode/TestCode.vbproj — TestCode: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
  • XML-doc coverage: TestLibOptimizationDotNet3.5 TestLibOptimizationDotNet3.5/TestLibOptimizationDotNet3.5.vbproj — TestLibOptimizationDotNet3.5: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
  • XML-doc coverage: LibOptimization(net35) LibOptimization/LibOptimization.vbproj — LibOptimization(net35): 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
D18 · Solution Shape · Build did not complete in the analyzer · ×1
  • Build did not complete in the analyzer — `dotnet build` reported 5 error(s) but no C# compiler diagnostic — an SDK / target-framework / restore mismatch in the analyzer environment, not a code defect (common for an older codebase whose target framework the analyzer's SDK can't build). Solution Shape is scored on structure and is NOT capped; the C# semantic analysis loads independently and is unaffected.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list OptimizeFunction.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json8artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0—

Run 019fdebe-be2f-75f9-a3cd-69e2b558fc67 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 17 · Warnings: 131 · Recommendations: 20 · Info: 8 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 08-08-2026 @ 00:21 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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