trustbit/Contexture

Executive summary

trustbit/Contexture scores 52 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while five of its seven lenses score higher still: Performance at 100 and Code Health at 91, both rated Exemplary, and Architecture at 76, Production Readiness at 55 and Security and Compliance at 53, all rated Adequate. The project hasn't declared a stable release yet, so its lenses are rated against a lower bar than a released product's, while the score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The score is lower than those five because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Maturity, which scores 47 and is rated Adequate. Its Knowledge Freshness dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Maturity can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to resolve the 77 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness, and if Maturity rose to 70, the score would rise from 52 to about 56.

69 findings are critical: 35 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, 21 in Static Analysis (SAST), three in IaC & Container Security, three in Page structure, two in Forms & labels, two in Secret Scanning, one in ARIA correctness, one in Circular Imports and one in Keyboard semantics.

Watchdog couldn't measure 35 dimensions in this code, among them Dependency Hygiene, Explicit Debt and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 18,077 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €24,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 91 ★ Exemplary Architecture 76 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 47 Adequate, capped by Knowledge Freshness and Architecture documentation Production Readiness 55 Adequate, capped by Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 53 Adequate, capped by Static Analysis (SAST), Dependency Vulnerabilities and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Accessibility 50 Adequate, capped by Keyboard semantics Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Maturity 47 · counts for 46%Accessibility 50 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 53 · counts for 14%Production Readiness 55 · counts for 8%Architecture 76 · counts for 4%Code Health 91 · counts for 2%Performance 100 · counts for 1%

If Maturity rose from 47 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 52 to about 56.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 87%Tests 13%

New since the last survey: 13 findings

These 13 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 8 October 2026.

Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Large Files · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js: 1251 lines of code frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js
Large Files · frontend-vue/src/pages/analytics/Analytics.vue: 413 lines of code frontend-vue/src/pages/analytics/Analytics.vue
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed inline frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureSearch.vue
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed inline frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureTextarea.vue
Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/util/LoadingWrapper.vue

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 6 findings

These 6 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 8 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/pages/domain-details/DomainDetails.vue
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/stores/collaborations.ts
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js

Rebuild cost: about €24,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€8,000 to €40,000, for 133 to 421 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 52. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Small: 18,077 lines of product code

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · ADR Quality

Resolve the 77 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Namespaces.fs (2), Types.fs (2), ApplicationReadModels.fs.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Medium effort · Knowledge Freshness

Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md.

Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Documentation Quality

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €24,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 47 (Weak). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Maturity grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Maturity actions in Top priorities.

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 4 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

218 modules, with 254 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 3 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 178 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 Aggregates.BoundedContext.ValueObjects	2 Aggregates.Collaboration.ValueObjects	3 Aggregates.Domain	4 Aggregates.Namespace	5 Aggregates.NamespaceTemplate	6 AllEvents	8 ReadModels.Find	9 Tests.EnvironmentSimulation	10 Aggregates.BoundedContext	11 Aggregates.Collaboration	12 Aggregates.Namespace.Projections	13 Aggregates.NamespaceTemplate.Projections	14 Infrastructure.Subscriptions	15 Aggregates.BoundedContext.Projections	16 FileBased.Database.Serialization	17 Infrastructure.Storage	18 Tests.TestHost	21 FileBased.Database	22 Infrastructure	27 Infrastructure.Projections	28 Infrastructure.ReadModels	29 Infrastructure.Subscriptions.PositionStorage	31 Reactions	32 ReadModels.BoundedContext	38 ReadModels.Namespace
1 Aggregates.BoundedContext.ValueObjects
2 Aggregates.Collaboration.ValueObjects
3 Aggregates.Domain
4 Aggregates.Namespace
5 Aggregates.NamespaceTemplate
6 AllEvents
7 CommandHandler
8 ReadModels.Find
9 Tests.EnvironmentSimulation
10 Aggregates.BoundedContext	15
11 Aggregates.Collaboration		6
12 Aggregates.Namespace.Projections				2
13 Aggregates.NamespaceTemplate.Projections					2
14 Infrastructure.Subscriptions																			5
15 Aggregates.BoundedContext.Projections	5								1
16 FileBased.Database.Serialization	5	2									1	1
17 Infrastructure.Storage													2						7
18 Tests.TestHost								1					2
19 Apis.BoundedContexts.Results	5		1								1			1
20 Apis.Domains.Results	5		1								1			1
21 FileBased.Database												1			3
22 Infrastructure													2			1
23 FileBased.Convert.BoundedContext									1						1			1	2
24 FileBased.Convert.Collaboration										1					1			1	2
25 FileBased.Convert.Domain			1												1			1	2
26 FileBased.Convert.Namespace				1											1			1	2
27 Infrastructure.Projections																			1
28 Infrastructure.ReadModels													2						5
29 Infrastructure.Subscriptions.PositionStorage																			1
30 Tests						1											1		1
31 Reactions													1						1	1
32 ReadModels.BoundedContext									1					2						1	1
33 ReadModels.EventLog			1			1			1										2		1
34 ReadModels.Find.BoundedContexts							2		1										1		1
35 ReadModels.Find.Domains			1				2												1		1
36 ReadModels.Find.Labels				1			2												1		1
37 ReadModels.Find.Namespaces				1			2												1		1
38 ReadModels.Namespace				1							2									1	1
39 Apis.BoundedContexts.QueryEndpoints																								1	1
40 Reactions.ReactionInitializationModule						2							1						2			2	4

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 91% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.7 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 8.1 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.5 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.8 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 9.6 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 8.3 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 R3 · React / TS Large Files 9.3 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 9.9 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0

The Ugly

X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 3.5

At a glance — Architecture · 76% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 7.0

The Bad

AX10 · Repo Code composition 4.9

The Ugly

D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 47% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.7 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.0

The Ugly

D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 55% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

The Good

D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 8.0 R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 10.0 R6 · React / TS Tooling 10.0 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 8.5

The Bad

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 5.3 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 5.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0 R5 · React / TS Dependency Freshness 5.6

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 3.0

At a glance — Security · 53% · Adequate · gated by D29, D30, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 8.6 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0

The Bad

D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 6.0

The Ugly

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 2.2 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0 D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Accessibility · 50% · Adequate · gated by AC4 ·

The Good

AC1 · Repo Text alternatives 10.0 AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 7.0

The Bad

AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 6.4 AC3 · Repo Page structure 5.3 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 6.0

The Ugly

AC4 · Repo Keyboard semantics 3.5 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

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 category	Findings	Severity
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	63	High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection	33	High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	8	High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by addressing the 77 orphaned files in the Knowledge Freshness dimension, prioritizing Namespaces.fs, Types.fs, and ApplicationReadModels. Simultaneously, resolve the single documentation finding in README.md and remediate the two leaked secrets in REDACTED to ensure immediate security and clarity. Finally, establish a robust architecture documentation process by creating an ADR folder and writing concise records for all significant design decisions, including their dates, contexts, and consequences.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+4.2 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Resolve the 77 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Namespaces.fs (2), Types.fs (2), ApplicationReadModels.fs.	+4.7 pts	Medium	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md.	+2.2 pts	Low	Documentation Quality
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+3.8 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (2).	+1.8 pts	Low	Secret Scanning
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Bubble.js, Search.vue, Database.fs.	+0.8 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion.	+0.8 pts	Low	Project Cohesion
Resolve the 5 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED.	+0.7 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 27 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 30% slop · 11% mixed · 59% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.8	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.8	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.9	Slop	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.9	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.0	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.1	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.4	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.5	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js	7.1	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: Bubble.showMainPage (cognitive 49)
backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs	7.2	Near-clean	God Classes: FileTooLong: Filebased/Database.fs
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/InMemory.fs	7.8	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline (cyclomatic 19)
backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs	7.8	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)
frontend-vue/src/core/filter.ts	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: filter.filter (cognitive 22)
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Sunburst.js	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: Sunburst.renderSunburst (cognitive 17)
frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts	8.5	Near-clean	God Classes: FunctionTooLong: boundedContexts.useBoundedContextsStore
frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts	8.5	Near-clean	God Classes: FunctionTooLong: namespaces.useNamespaces

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 69

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 118

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 101

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 36

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 59 of 63 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 63 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D13D14D15D19D20D21D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D43D44AC1AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6PF3R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9X20X23X27X28

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

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, 267 of 288 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.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16493-e8b9-7ae3-961d-7676debe8778.

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.

D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 77 test(s) behind this row are the ones the JavaScript/TypeScript census could read, and this repository also carries at least 14 test source file(s) (.fs) that it cannot: it reads JavaScript/TypeScript test declarations off disk, so a JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: `dotnet list package` exited 1 with no output.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares package.json, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its NuGet package dependencies. Nothing was read about its npm dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. All 80 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 80 of the 161 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. This repository's source is written only in languages whose packages are published through a manifest, and no manifest in the tree makes a publication act: either there is no package manifest of any ecosystem (no package.json, pyproject.toml, setup.py, gemspec, Cargo.toml, pom.xml, build.gradle, composer.json, pubspec.yaml or mix.exs), or every one present declares in its package manager's own terms that it is not published (an npm package marked "private": true, a Cargo package with publish = false, a pubspec with publish_to: none, a Composer "project", a Poetry project with package-mode = false, or the "Private :: Do Not Upload" classifier). With no publication act there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D28 Secrets (history) — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. D28's config-credential rule (WD-SECRET-0002) parses each committed `.json` config as a document and reads credential-named values; `backend/Contexture.Api/appsettings.json`, `backend/Contexture.Api/appsettings.Development.json` did not parse (JSON5, a template, several concatenated documents), so a credential bound there is UNMEASURED by that rule. gitleaks still scanned the same files as text.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and this repository's container is Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registered from F#, whose lifetimes are not modelled yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via DockerCompose (REDACTED). compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — contexture-database Pulling contexture Pulling contexture Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden contexture-database Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: contexture-database Pulling contexture Pulling contexture Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden contexture-database Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Vue components is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
M3 Folder & project structure — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Whether the tests sit apart from production code is not visible here, because the suite is not in a form this pass reads. The test-separation credit is granted rather than withheld: this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about the repository's tests. You can widen what we reach: keep the test surface somewhere a reader can find it without opening a binary — an exported/checked-in test source tree beside the production code makes the suite reviewable, diffable and discoverable by tooling.
R10 Code Duplication — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 4 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 44.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
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.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.7 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline at 19. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being CascadeDelete.project at 18 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: backend/Contexture.Api/Reactions.fs (CascadeDelete.project at 18). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline (cyclomatic 19)backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/InMemory.fs:86

What to do

Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline (cyclomatic 19). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.7 to about 10.0/10.
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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Bubble.showMainPage at 49.

Bubble.showMainPage (cognitive 49)frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:241

Bubble.showBoundedContextConnections (cognitive 43)frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:814

filter.filter (cognitive 22)frontend-vue/src/core/filter.ts:9

SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline (cognitive 17)backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/InMemory.fs:86

Sunburst.renderSunburst (cognitive 17)frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Sunburst.js:150

What to do

Bring the 8 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with Bubble.showMainPage (cognitive 49), showMainPage (cognitive 49), Bubble.showBoundedContextConnections (cognitive 43). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 8 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 8.1 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.5 / 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 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

FunctionTooLong: Bubble.showBoundedContextConnections · ×5frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:814

FileTooLong: visualisations/Bubble.js · ×2frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js

MethodTooLong: Bubble.buildDatafrontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1273

What to do

Resolve the 5 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Bubble.js (2), boundedContexts.ts, namespaces.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Bubble.js, Database.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Bubble.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.8 / 10Stronggated by 10 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

10 duplicated block group(s) detected. Measured on part of this repository only: .vue (42% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:265

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Convert.fs:169

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs:151

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs:252

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Collaborations.fs:47

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Database.fs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Convert.fs, Subscriptions.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with FindReadModels.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 3 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution5.3 / 10Adequate✓ 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 5.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

77 test methods: 49 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 28 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 77 `it`/`test` case(s) across 10 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.

What to do

Improve Test Distribution — currently 5.3/10. — 77 test methods: 49 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 28 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 77 `it`/`test` case(s) across 10 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 77 tests. Measured on the JavaScript/TypeScript suite only — at least 14 test source file(s) (.fs) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). integration: measured (0 flaky); JavaScript/TypeScript (vitest via `npm ci --ignore-scripts` in frontend-vue/ (51 tests)): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

0 of 162 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 16 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 145 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's NuGet package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares package.json, and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ 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 repository's root README gives a strong overview of Contexture (the BCC wizard, its purpose, the DDD motivation), an example, and links to concept.md, the live site, and the backend README. The backend/README covers run/config, publish/run manually, caveats, and testing; the frontend-vue directories each have their own focused READMEs with requirements, development commands, and configuration. All four README files are well written for their deploy tiers but lack an architecture/design doc (the summary says only one markdown file exists in the set).

Documentation: no contributor guidanceREADME.md

What to do

Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 2 build units (MSBuild, npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.2 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

33 finding(s): 0 critical, 21 high, 12 medium, 0 low. 16 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens.

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 16 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

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

53 finding(s): 4 critical, 31 high, 15 medium, 3 low.

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 30 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (25), REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (30 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 High vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security8.6 / 10Adequategated by 3 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (REDACTED/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

8 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 3 medium, 2 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 3 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

80 of 80 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js. Counted over 80 of the 161 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×77backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/ApplicationReadModels.fs:1

Most significant orphaned file · ×3frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 77 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Namespaces.fs (2), Types.fs (2), ApplicationReadModels.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (77 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Bubble.js, Search.vue, Database.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 5 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 2 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

End-of-life runtime: .NET net7.0REDACTED:4

What to do

Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC1 · Text alternatives10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: image/media elements — img, area, input[type=image], svg, video, object, embed, canvas — across the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and dynamic-attribute elements are skipped. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is NOT read by any producer, so it contributes no element to this population; where such a frontend is present the card discloses it as an analyzer gap rather than scoring around it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC2 · Forms & labels6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one). — backend/Contexture.Api/Views/Views.fs:63
This <label> has no for and wraps no form control, so it names nothing: assistive tech never announces it, and clicking the caption focuses no field. Note that an id on the label is not an association — it is the TARGET of one, so a control still has to point at it. Give the label for="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id. — frontend-vue/src/components/core/auth/SignIn.vue:6

What to do

Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). — backend/Contexture.Api/Views/Views.fs:92
A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. — backend/Contexture.Api/Views/Views.fs:92
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. — backend/Contexture.Api/Views/Views.fs:92
An iframe with no title (or an empty one) is announced only as "frame". Add a non-empty title describing its content, or an aria-label. — frontend-vue/src/components/core/header/StructurizerDiscloser.vue:27

What to do

Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC4 · Keyboard semantics3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".

A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureSearch.vue:18

What to do

Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC5 · ARIA correctness7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

These two <contexturetextlinkbutton> controls (line 18 and line 23) are the two halves of one toggle: each is rendered on a different value of "isInEditMode" and each one's own click handler writes "isInEditMode". Nothing exposes the state programmatically — no aria-pressed on a toggle button, no aria-expanded/aria-controls if it is a disclosure — and neither branch has an accessible name, so assistive tech is told nothing at all when the state changes; a screen-reader user sees only that one nameless control was replaced by another (WCAG 4.1.2). Render ONE control that stays in the DOM and carries aria-pressed="true|false" bound to "isInEditMode", or keep the two branches and give them DISTINCT accessible names (the WAI-ARIA APG name-change pattern), which announces the state through the name instead. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/ContextureBoundedContextCanvasElement.vue:18

What to do

Use valid, non-abstract roles, supply the ARIA state each role requires, and never put aria-hidden on a focusable element.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

<input> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2). — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureSearch.vue:9
<textarea> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2). — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureTextarea.vue:7
`.dot` moves (`animation: dotSpin var(--duration) linear calc(var(--delay) * 0.155s) infinite alternate`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/util/LoadingWrapper.vue:40

What to do

Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.

No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 88 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-vuejs-accessibility, then assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition4.9 / 10Adequate✓ 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. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.7 / 10Exemplary✓ 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

Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy8.0 / 10Strong◐ 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.

README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists — searched for: `kubernetes`, `k8s`, `helm`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:92

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting with the ASP.NET Core instrumentation) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5686 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

What to do

Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R10 · Code Duplication8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

frontend-vue/src/components/domains/ContextureCreateDomainModal.vue:17 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateSubdomainModal.vue:18 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 54 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — frontend-vue/src/components/domains/ContextureCreateDomainModal.vue:17
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesConsumed.vue:140 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesProduced.vue:140 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 50 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesConsumed.vue:140
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:525 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:762 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:525
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:110 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCUbiquitousLanguage.vue:109 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:110
frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/checkbox/ContextureCheckbox.vue:42 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/radio/ContextureRadio.vue:42 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 201 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/checkbox/ContextureCheckbox.vue:42
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:190 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Sunburst.js:95 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:190
frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureInputText.vue:45 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureTextarea.vue:42 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 125 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureInputText.vue:45
frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContexturePrimaryButton.vue:15 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureWhiteButton.vue:15 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContexturePrimaryButton.vue:15
frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:84 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateSubdomainModal.vue:81 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:84
frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureSecondaryButton.vue:16 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureTextLinkButton.vue:16 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureSecondaryButton.vue:16
frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/autocomplete/ContextureAutocomplete.vue:142 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/radio/ContextureRadioGroup.vue:50 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/autocomplete/ContextureAutocomplete.vue:142
frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:183 · frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:204 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:183
frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:83 · frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:110 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:83
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:214 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:368 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:214
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/NamespaceLabelAutocomplete.vue:27 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/NamespaceValueAutocomplete.vue:32 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 80 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/NamespaceLabelAutocomplete.vue:27
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:63 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCKey.vue:67 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCStrategicClassification.vue:268 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:63
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/ContextureMoveBoundedContextModal.vue:71 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/ContextureMoveDomainModal.vue:101 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/ContextureMoveBoundedContextModal.vue:71
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:61 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCKey.vue:65 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:61
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1383 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1419 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1383
frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:35 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateSubdomainModal.vue:33 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:35
frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:51 · frontend-vue/src/stores/namespace-templates.ts:10 · frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:19 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:51
frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:64 · frontend-vue/src/stores/domains.ts:59 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:64
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:116 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDomainRoles.vue:172 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCUbiquitousLanguage.vue:115 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:116
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCConnection.vue:291 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCConnection.vue:311 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCConnection.vue:291
frontend-vue/src/components/core/change-short-name/changeShortNameValidationSchema.ts:20 · frontend-vue/src/components/core/change-short-name/changeShortNameValidationSchema.ts:44 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/components/core/change-short-name/changeShortNameValidationSchema.ts:20
frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureIconButton.vue:10 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContexturePrimaryButton.vue:18 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureSecondaryButton.vue:18 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureTextLinkButton.vue:18 · +1 more site(s) not listed — the 5 copies are spread across 5 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureIconButton.vue:10
frontend-vue/src/composables/useFetch.ts:25 · frontend-vue/src/stores/auth.ts:37 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — frontend-vue/src/composables/useFetch.ts:25
frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:102 · frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:120 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:102
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/ContextureMoveBoundedContextModal.vue:52 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:35 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateSubdomainModal.vue:33 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/ContextureMoveBoundedContextModal.vue:52
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:63 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCKey.vue:67 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCStrategicClassification.vue:268 · frontend-vue/src/pages/bounded-context/BoundedContextCanvas.vue:125 — the 4 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 4 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:63
frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:162 · frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:189 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:162
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:99 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:146 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:99
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:908 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:940 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:908
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:562 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:799 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:562
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:120 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDefineRelationshipModal.vue:236 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDomainRoles.vue:176 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCUbiquitousLanguage.vue:119 — the 4 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 4 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:120
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:64 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:110 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:64
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:387 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:561 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:798 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:387
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:338 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:362 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:338
frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/ContextureNamespaces.vue:227 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/ContextureNamespaces.vue:248 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/ContextureNamespaces.vue:227
frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:89 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:105 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:89

What to do

Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

showMainPage has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 49; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:241
filter has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — frontend-vue/src/core/filter.ts:9
filteredColab has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:246

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js has 1251 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1
frontend-vue/src/pages/analytics/Analytics.vue has 413 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — frontend-vue/src/pages/analytics/Analytics.vue:1

What to do

Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R4 · Test Coverage10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R5 · Dependency Freshness5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).

Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.

44 outdated package(s); JS/npm CVEs scored in D30

What to do

Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. — frontend-vue/src/types/collaboration.ts:6

Do you agree with this assessment?

R8 · Dependency Hygiene8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

Declared in frontend-vue/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)

What to do

Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R9 · Circular Imports7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

frontend-vue/src/App.vue → frontend-vue/src/components/core/navbar/ContextureNavbar.vue → frontend-vue/src/routes.ts → frontend-vue/src/pages/bounded-context/BoundedContextCanvas.vue → frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/layouts/BCCV3.vue → frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesConsumed.vue → frontend-vue/src/core/validationRules.ts → frontend-vue/src/main.ts → frontend-vue/src/App.vue (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 15 files) — frontend-vue/src/App.vue:25

What to do

Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `NullPointerException` (Java, Kotlin, Scala), `ArgumentError.notNull` (Dart) or `ArgumentNullException` (F#'s `nullArg`) tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

The guard on line 26 rejects `value` and line 27 reports that rejection as `nullArg` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace value` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `value`, and on that path `value` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `nullArg` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Raise `ArgumentException` for the empty case — `invalidArg (nameof value) "must not be empty"`, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/Types.fs:27

What to do

Each finding names the throw and the test in its own condition that is true of a NON-null value. Confirm from the two, then throw the exception that describes what was actually wrong: on the JVM `IllegalArgumentException` for a value that arrived empty (`Objects.requireNonNull(x)` for the null half, Kotlin's `require(x.isNotEmpty())` for the empty one), in Dart `ArgumentError.value(x, 'x', 'must not be empty')`, in F# `invalidArg (nameof x) "must not be empty"` (keeping `nullArg` for the null half). Splitting the two conditions is usually clearer than picking one exception for both: they are different failures and the caller may want to handle them differently.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `for … in` loop leaves the mutable .NET collection it is walking alone — F#'s own lists, arrays, maps and sets cannot be changed by a loop body, but a `ResizeArray`, `Dictionary`, `Queue` or other BCL collection walked by `for x in c do` is walked through its enumerator, so a body that adds to or removes from `c` makes the next `MoveNext` throw `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC1 · Text alternatives	1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5	Partial signal
AC2 · Forms & labels	1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics	2.1.1, 2.4.3	Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness	4.1.2	Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety	1.4.3, 2.4.7	Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 40 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

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.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	91%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	76%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	47%	Adequate — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	55%	Adequate — gated by P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	53%	Adequate — gated by D29, D30, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility	50%	Adequate — gated by AC4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 63 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.

AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — contexture-database Pulling contexture Pulling contexture Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden contexture-database Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: contexture-database Pulling contexture Pulling contexture Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden contexture-database Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution; this repository's .NET projects are all F# (.fsproj), which the C#/VB workspace does not load, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Aggregate roots were found in only one source directory (Contexture.Api), which is a layered codebase, not two contexts. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 reads resolved call sites in the languages it reads only — this repository's production source is .ts, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the .NET half measured 48.9%; the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — frontend-vue/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. This repository's production source spans both ecosystems, and no partial figure is published as if it were the whole: coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (3 signals for this style, 3 needed — the count is met but a required primary signal is absent): 2 aggregate root(s) (types guarding their own state behind command methods — this language has no AggregateRoot base to inherit); 12 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one; a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer; a top-level example/ tree: a library or framework whose examples are its consumers — these types are building blocks, not a domain
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 1 aggregate(s) with Apply/When folds; an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events)
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a BenchmarkDotNet reference in an .fsproj or .vbproj, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's F# code has 7,874 production line(s), 3 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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.

Critical — 69 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×30

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 5 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

AC2 · Forms & labels · <button> with no accessible text · ×1

<button> with no accessible text backend/Contexture.Api/Views/Views.fs:63 — A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one).

AC2 · Forms & labels · <label> that labels no control · ×1

<label> that labels no control frontend-vue/src/components/core/auth/SignIn.vue:6 — This <label> has no for and wraps no form control, so it names nothing: assistive tech never announces it, and clicking the caption focuses no field. Note that an id on the label is not an association — it is the TARGET of one, so a control still has to point at it. Give the label for="<the control's id>", move the control inside the label, or point the control's aria-labelledby at this label's id.

AC3 · Page structure · <html> without a lang · ×1

<html> without a lang backend/Contexture.Api/Views/Views.fs:92 — The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").

AC3 · Page structure · Document without a <title> · ×1

Document without a <title> backend/Contexture.Api/Views/Views.fs:92 — A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>.

AC3 · Page structure · <iframe> without a title · ×1

<iframe> without a title frontend-vue/src/components/core/header/StructurizerDiscloser.vue:27 — An iframe with no title (or an empty one) is announced only as "frame". Add a non-empty title describing its content, or an aria-label.

AC4 · Keyboard semantics · Click handler on a non-interactive <div> · ×1

Click handler on a non-interactive <div> frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureSearch.vue:18 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.

AC5 · ARIA correctness · Toggle state conveyed only by which <contexturetextlinkbutton> renders · ×1

Toggle state conveyed only by which <contexturetextlinkbutton> renders frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/ContextureBoundedContextCanvasElement.vue:18 — These two <contexturetextlinkbutton> controls (line 18 and line 23) are the two halves of one toggle: each is rendered on a different value of "isInEditMode" and each one's own click handler writes "isInEditMode". Nothing exposes the state programmatically — no aria-pressed on a toggle button, no aria-expanded/aria-controls if it is a disclosure — and neither branch has an accessible name, so assistive tech is told nothing at all when the state changes; a screen-reader user sees only that one nameless control was replaced by another (WCAG 4.1.2). Render ONE control that stays in the DOM and carries aria-pressed="true|false" bound to "isInEditMode", or keep the two branches and give them DISTINCT accessible names (the WAI-ARIA APG name-change pattern), which announces the state through the name instead.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (8 files) · ×1

Import cycle (8 files) frontend-vue/src/App.vue:25 — frontend-vue/src/App.vue → frontend-vue/src/components/core/navbar/ContextureNavbar.vue → frontend-vue/src/routes.ts → frontend-vue/src/pages/bounded-context/BoundedContextCanvas.vue → frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/layouts/BCCV3.vue → frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesConsumed.vue → frontend-vue/src/core/validationRules.ts → frontend-vue/src/main.ts → frontend-vue/src/App.vue (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 15 files)

Serious — 118 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×14

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×5

FunctionTooLong: Bubble.showBoundedContextConnections frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:814 — FunctionTooLong — showBoundedContextConnections runs 163 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 63 over it, 1.63× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: boundedContexts.useBoundedContextsStore frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:19 — FunctionTooLong — useBoundedContextsStore runs 160 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 60 over it, 1.60× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: Bubble.showSubdomainPage frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:573 — FunctionTooLong — showSubdomainPage runs 143 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 43 over it, 1.43× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: namespaces.useNamespaces frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:15 — FunctionTooLong — useNamespaces runs 142 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 42 over it, 1.42× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: domains.useDomainsStore frontend-vue/src/stores/domains.ts:7 — FunctionTooLong — useDomainsStore runs 130 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.30× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) · ×4

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/autocomplete/ContextureAutocomplete.vue:142 — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/autocomplete/ContextureAutocomplete.vue:142 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/radio/ContextureRadioGroup.vue:50 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:183 — frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:183 · frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:204 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:83 — frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:83 · frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:110 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:214 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:214 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:368 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) · ×4

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCConnection.vue:291 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCConnection.vue:291 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCConnection.vue:311 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/core/change-short-name/changeShortNameValidationSchema.ts:20 — frontend-vue/src/components/core/change-short-name/changeShortNameValidationSchema.ts:20 · frontend-vue/src/components/core/change-short-name/changeShortNameValidationSchema.ts:44 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/composables/useFetch.ts:25 — frontend-vue/src/composables/useFetch.ts:25 · frontend-vue/src/stores/auth.ts:37 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:102 — frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:102 · frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:120 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×3

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/ContextureMoveBoundedContextModal.vue:71 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/ContextureMoveBoundedContextModal.vue:71 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/ContextureMoveDomainModal.vue:101 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:61 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:61 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCKey.vue:65 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1383 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1383 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1419 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) · ×3

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:162 — frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:162 · frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:189 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:99 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:99 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:146 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:908 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:908 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:940 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed inline · ×2

Focus outline removed inline frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureSearch.vue:9 — <input> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2).
Focus outline removed inline frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureTextarea.vue:7 — <textarea> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2).

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2

FileTooLong: visualisations/Bubble.js frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js — FileTooLong — 1009 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded; the length bar is tripled for a single-responsibility module of 4 or fewer top-level units). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 509 over it, 2.02× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Filebased/Database.fs backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs — FileTooLong — 503 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.01× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:265 — backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:265-276 | backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:284-294 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:532 — backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:532-542 | backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:607-617 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Convert.fs:169 — backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Convert.fs:169-175 | backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Convert.fs:260-266 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/Subscriptions.fs:134 — backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/Subscriptions.fs:134-140 | backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/Subscriptions.fs:145-151 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/Subscriptions.fs:134` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:84 — frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:84 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateSubdomainModal.vue:81 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureSecondaryButton.vue:16 — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureSecondaryButton.vue:16 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureTextLinkButton.vue:16 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:35 — frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:35 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateSubdomainModal.vue:33 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:64 — frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:64 · frontend-vue/src/stores/domains.ts:59 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:64 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:64 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:110 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:338 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:338 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:362 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/ContextureNamespaces.vue:227 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/ContextureNamespaces.vue:227 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/ContextureNamespaces.vue:248 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:89 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:89 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:105 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

AC3 · Page structure · Page without a main landmark · ×1

Page without a main landmark backend/Contexture.Api/Views/Views.fs:92 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard · ×1

Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/util/LoadingWrapper.vue:40 — `.dot` moves (`animation: dotSpin var(--duration) linear calc(var(--delay) * 0.155s) infinite alternate`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.

AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 88 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline (cyclomatic 19) backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/InMemory.fs:86 — SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Bubble.showMainPage (cognitive 49) · ×1

Bubble.showMainPage (cognitive 49) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:241 — Bubble.showMainPage has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 8 (27 pts), if/else 6 (22 pts) (nesting depth added 35). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js holds 2 of the 5 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 62 of the 73 points over it (85%), 8.9× the next-largest file (frontend-vue/src/core/filter.ts at 7). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Bubble.showBoundedContextConnections (cognitive 43) · ×1

Bubble.showBoundedContextConnections (cognitive 43) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:814 — Bubble.showBoundedContextConnections has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (40 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 29). None of this is in the body itself: all 43 points belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 885, 840, 861). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js holds 2 of the 5 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 62 of the 73 points over it (85%), 8.9× the next-largest file (frontend-vue/src/core/filter.ts at 7). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · filter.filter (cognitive 22) · ×1

filter.filter (cognitive 22) frontend-vue/src/core/filter.ts:9 — filter.filter has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline (cognitive 17) · ×1

SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline (cognitive 17) backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/InMemory.fs:86 — SingleWriterPipeline.singleWriterPipeline has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (10 pts), if/else 4 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Sunburst.renderSunburst (cognitive 17) · ×1

Sunburst.renderSunburst (cognitive 17) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Sunburst.js:150 — Sunburst.renderSunburst has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 5 (8 pts), if/else 6 (7 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 17 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 6 function items inside it that branch (highlightOpacity, a function literal at line 203, a function literal at line 192, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1

MethodTooLong: Bubble.buildData frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1273 — MethodTooLong — buildData runs 130 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.30× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs:151 — backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs:151-166 | backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs:168-183 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs:252 — backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs:252-264 | backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs:333-345 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Collaborations.fs:47 — backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Collaborations.fs:47-54 | backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Domains.fs:138-146 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Collaborations.fs:47` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (2–5 lines × 7) · ×1

Duplicated block (2–5 lines × 7) backend/Contexture.Api/AllRoutes.fs:16 — backend/Contexture.Api/AllRoutes.fs:16-19 | backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/BoundedContexts.fs:155-157 | backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/BoundedContexts.fs:222-224 | backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/BoundedContexts.fs:264-268 | backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Domains.fs:147-148 | backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Domains.fs:163-165 | backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Domains.fs:178-182 — there are 7 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 7 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/BoundedContexts.fs:155` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/BoundedContexts.fs:65 — backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/BoundedContexts.fs:65-70 | backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Domains.fs:103-108 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/BoundedContexts.fs:65` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:516 — backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:516-520 | backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:596-600 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×1

End-of-life runtime: .NET net7.0 REDACTED:4 — REDACTED declares .NET net7.0 as this project's target framework, and .NET 7, support ended 2024-05-14. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2024-05-14 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the .NET half measured 48.9%; the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — frontend-vue/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. This repository's production source spans both ecosystems, and no partial figure is published as if it were the whole: coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.

R10 · Code Duplication · Wholesale file copy (54 identical lines × 2 files) · ×1

Wholesale file copy (54 identical lines × 2 files) frontend-vue/src/components/domains/ContextureCreateDomainModal.vue:17 — frontend-vue/src/components/domains/ContextureCreateDomainModal.vue:17 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateSubdomainModal.vue:18 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 54 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done.

R10 · Code Duplication · Wholesale file copy (50 identical lines × 2 files) · ×1

Wholesale file copy (50 identical lines × 2 files) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesConsumed.vue:140 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesConsumed.vue:140 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesProduced.vue:140 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 50 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (43 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (43 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:525 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:525 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:762 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (41 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (41 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:110 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:110 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCUbiquitousLanguage.vue:109 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (37 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (37 matched lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/checkbox/ContextureCheckbox.vue:42 — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/checkbox/ContextureCheckbox.vue:42 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/radio/ContextureRadio.vue:42 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 201 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:190 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:190 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Sunburst.js:95 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (25 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (25 matched lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureInputText.vue:45 — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureInputText.vue:45 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/input/ContextureTextarea.vue:42 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 125 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (24 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContexturePrimaryButton.vue:15 — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContexturePrimaryButton.vue:15 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureWhiteButton.vue:15 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (16 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (16 matched lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/NamespaceLabelAutocomplete.vue:27 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/NamespaceLabelAutocomplete.vue:27 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/NamespaceValueAutocomplete.vue:32 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 80 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 3 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:63 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:63 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCKey.vue:67 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCStrategicClassification.vue:268 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3 locations) frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:51 — frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:51 · frontend-vue/src/stores/namespace-templates.ts:10 · frontend-vue/src/stores/namespaces.ts:19 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:116 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:116 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDomainRoles.vue:172 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCUbiquitousLanguage.vue:115 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 5 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 5 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureIconButton.vue:10 — frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureIconButton.vue:10 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContexturePrimaryButton.vue:18 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureSecondaryButton.vue:18 · frontend-vue/src/components/primitives/button/ContextureTextLinkButton.vue:18 · +1 more site(s) not listed — the 5 copies are spread across 5 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/ContextureMoveBoundedContextModal.vue:52 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/ContextureMoveBoundedContextModal.vue:52 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateBoundedContextModal.vue:35 · frontend-vue/src/components/domains/details/ContextureCreateSubdomainModal.vue:33 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 4 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:63 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDescription.vue:63 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCKey.vue:67 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCStrategicClassification.vue:268 · frontend-vue/src/pages/bounded-context/BoundedContextCanvas.vue:125 — the 4 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 4 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:562 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:562 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:799 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4 locations) frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:120 — frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCBusinessDecisions.vue:120 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDefineRelationshipModal.vue:236 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCDomainRoles.vue:176 · frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCUbiquitousLanguage.vue:119 — the 4 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 4 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3 locations) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:387 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:387 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:561 · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:798 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function showMainPage (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 49) · ×1

Complex function showMainPage (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 49) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:241 — showMainPage has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 49; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function filter (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 22) · ×1

Complex function filter (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 22) frontend-vue/src/core/filter.ts:9 — filter has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function filteredColab (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 14) · ×1

Complex function filteredColab (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 14) frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:246 — filteredColab has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R3 · Large Files · frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js · ×1

frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js: 1251 lines of code frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1 — frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js has 1251 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R3 · Large Files · frontend-vue/src/pages/analytics/Analytics.vue · ×1

frontend-vue/src/pages/analytics/Analytics.vue: 413 lines of code frontend-vue/src/pages/analytics/Analytics.vue:1 — frontend-vue/src/pages/analytics/Analytics.vue has 413 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R5 · Dependency Freshness · Dependency Freshness · ×1

Dependency Freshness — 44 outdated package(s); JS/npm CVEs scored in D30

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@iconify-json/material-symbols' · ×1

Unused dependency '@iconify-json/material-symbols' — Declared in frontend-vue/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@vue/test-utils' · ×1

Unused dependency '@vue/test-utils' — Declared in frontend-vue/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'vite-plugin-pages' · ×1

Unused dependency 'vite-plugin-pages' — Declared in frontend-vue/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1

NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.

X20 · Mistyped argument guard · Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves · ×1

Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/Types.fs:27 — The guard on line 26 rejects `value` and line 27 reports that rejection as `nullArg` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace value` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `value`, and on that path `value` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it. So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `nullArg` to handle a real null handles the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. Raise `ArgumentException` for the empty case — `invalidArg (nameof value) "must not be empty"`, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.

Minor — 101 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×77

Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/ApplicationReadModels.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Program.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/NStoreBased.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/pages/analytics/Analytics.vue:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/Security.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/BoundedContexts.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/pages/domain-details/DomainDetails.vue:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCConnection.vue:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/ReadModels/Find/FindReadModels.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Entities/BoundedContext.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Convert.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Infrastructure/InMemory.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/namespace/ContextureNamespaces.vue:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Domains.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/visualisations/HierarchicalEdge.js:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Reactions.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/ContextureBoundedContextCard.vue:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCStrategicClassification.vue:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Entities/Namespace.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Apis/Namespaces.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/stores/boundedContexts.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesConsumed.vue:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file frontend-vue/src/components/bounded-context/canvas/BCCMessagesProduced.vue:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/AllRoutes.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Entities/Domain.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
+ 52 more in this group — see findings.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×3

Most significant orphaned file frontend-vue/src/visualisations/Bubble.js:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file frontend-vue/src/pages/search/Search.vue:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file backend/Contexture.Api/Filebased/Database.fs:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×1

Documentation: no contributor guidance README.md — There is no guidance on contributing or submitting pull requests. Add a brief CONTRIBUTING.md entry covering how to submit changes, including PR template and CI requirements.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 2 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `backend/Contexture.Api` (6640 LoC, 336 module-visible types across 8 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 80 of 80 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 80 separate risks. Counted over 80 of the 161 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1

No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

M3 · Folder & project structure · No src/ separation · ×1

No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×1

README/code drift README.md:92 — README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists — searched for: `kubernetes`, `k8s`, `helm`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5686 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No rollback/health safety · ×1

No rollback/health safety — Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

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

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'RelationshipTypes' · ×1

Unused export 'RelationshipTypes' frontend-vue/src/types/collaboration.ts:6 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

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.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-619eee7889d14257b5d582ed2c6812f9/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-619eee7889d14257b5d582ed2c6812f9/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	33	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list backend/Contexture.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	53	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	8	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a16493-e8b9-7ae3-961d-7676debe8778 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 91% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 76% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 47% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 55% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 53% · Adequate · gated by D29, D30, D36 ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 50% · Adequate · gated by AC4 ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts