Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
umami-software/umami carries serious gaps (33%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (13%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Security (51%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package (Security & performance tooling); Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup).
For scale: — (~0 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly — (—). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
59%
Adequate · gated by R7
Maturity
54%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
13% ⚠
Critical · gated by D8, D9, R4, R8, P2, P3, P5
Security
51%
Adequate · gated by D29, D36, D38
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 13% · 50% weightSecurity 51% · 27% weightMaturity 54% · 15% weightCode Health 59% · 8% weight
Raise Readiness 13 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 33 → ~55.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
9.6
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
R1 · React / TS
Type Safety
9.8
R2 · React / TS
Cyclomatic Complexity
8.1
R3 · React / TS
Large Files
9.6
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 50 | High / Critical |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 18 | High / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 1 | Medium |
Roadmap
First, establish comprehensive observability by adopting a structured logging library and implementing health checks across all services. Next, strengthen security and performance by integrating static analysis and secret scanning into the build pipeline. Then, codify disaster recovery and backup procedures in infrastructure as code, ensuring clear recovery time and point objectives. Finally, improve code quality by removing unused dependencies and increasing test coverage for unreached modules.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +20.8 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +20.8 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +23.8 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package. | +23.8 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. | +23.8 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies. | +23.8 pts | Medium | Dependency Hygiene |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +22.0 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
| Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically. | +20.8 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| pnpm-lock.yaml | 0.2 | Slop | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| .github/workflows/cd.yml | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| pnpm-workspace.yaml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: pnpm-block-exotic-sub-dependencies |
| .github/workflows/cd-cloud.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/stale-issues.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| src/lib/crypto.ts | 7.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: gcm-no-tag-length |
| src/recorder/index.js | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: sendReplayEvents (cognitive 21) |
| Dockerfile | 9.3 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: Low IaC: DS-0026 |
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 39 of 41 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 41 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D8D9D12D13D19D21D26D27D28D29D31D33D36D38AX5M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5R1R10R2R3R4R6R7R8R9X1X3X4
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, 70 of 82 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ 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 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- 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.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- 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".
- P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
1 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was sendReplayEvents at 21.
sendReplayEvents (cognitive 21)src/recorder/index.js:197
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
0 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — the solution has no test code.
No automated tests
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
Umami's documentation is strong and well-structured: a centered logo on the README plus GitHub release, license, and demo badges; a detailed getting started guide at umami.is/docs; an install-from-source walkthrough with requirements (Node 18.18+, PostgreSQL v12.14+), .env configuration, build steps, and API URL options; a podman deployment guide covering environment setup, running `podman-compose up`, optional systemd service installation, and compatibility notes for podman 4.3+; and a test-convention doc that is practical but thin on examples. The README also links to architecture docs (the outline lists 🛠 Installing from Source, Configure Umami, Build the Application, Start the Application, 🐳 Installing with Docker, 🔄 Getting Updates, 🛟 Support).
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — Umami's documentation is strong and well-structured: a centered logo on the README plus GitHub release, license, and demo badges; a detailed getting started guide at umami.is/docs; an install-from-source walkthrough with requirements (Node 18.18+, PostgreSQL v12.14+), .env configuration, build steps, and API URL options; a podman deployment guide covering environment setup, running `podman-compose up`, optional systemd service installation, and compatibility notes for podman 4.3+; and a test-convention doc that is practical but thin on examples. The README also links to architecture docs (the outline lists 🛠 Installing from Source, Configure Umami, Build the Application, Start the Application, 🐳 Installing with Docker, 🔄 Getting Updates, 🛟 Support).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
No projects to assess.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
Too little code to assess navigability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
18 finding(s): 0 critical, 17 high, 1 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd-cloud.yml:15
Medium: gcm-no-tag-lengthsrc/lib/crypto.ts:41
What to do
- Resolve the 17 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with cd.yml (8), ci.yml (3), pnpm-workspace.yaml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with crypto.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 1 low.
Low IaC: DS-0026Dockerfile
Do you agree with this assessment?
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
78 finding(s): 2 critical, 34 high, 36 medium, 6 low.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
What to do
- Resolve the 34 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with pnpm-lock.yaml (34). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (34 issue-level).
- Resolve the 14 Medium CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with pnpm-lock.yaml (14). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Critical CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with pnpm-lock.yaml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup
- A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
What to do
- Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety
What to do
- Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R10 · Code Duplication
- src/queries/sql/sessions/getSessionDataActivityStats.ts:31 · src/queries/sql/sessions/getSessionDataPivot.ts:32 · src/queries/sql/sessions/getSessionDataProperties.ts:31 — getSessionDataActivityStats.ts:31
- src/queries/sql/reports/getRevenueSessions.ts:24 · src/queries/sql/sessions/getWebsiteSessions.ts:24 — getRevenueSessions.ts:24
- src/queries/sql/events/getWebsiteEvents.ts:21 · src/queries/sql/reports/getRevenueSessions.ts:25 · src/queries/sql/sessions/getWebsiteSessions.ts:25 — getWebsiteEvents.ts:21
- src/queries/sql/getChannelExpandedMetrics.ts:68 · src/queries/sql/getChannelMetrics.ts:49 · src/queries/sql/reports/getRevenueMetrics.ts:167 — getChannelExpandedMetrics.ts:68
- src/queries/sql/sessions/getSessionDataActivityStats.ts:122 · src/queries/sql/sessions/getSessionDataPivot.ts:131 · src/queries/sql/sessions/getSessionDataProperties.ts:88 — getSessionDataActivityStats.ts:122
- src/queries/sql/events/getEventData.ts:34 · src/queries/sql/events/getEventData.ts:88 — getEventData.ts:34
- src/queries/sql/getWebsiteStats.ts:86 · src/queries/sql/getWeeklyTraffic.ts:56 — getWebsiteStats.ts:86
- src/queries/sql/heatmap/getHeatmap.ts:154 · src/queries/sql/heatmap/getHeatmap.ts:355 — getHeatmap.ts:154
What to do
- Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×8) — Heatmap.tsx:704, extractHeatmapEvents.ts:35, route.ts:73, …
What to do
- Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files
What to do
- Split the oversized components into smaller, focused ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage
- No test imports this module directly or transitively — its behavior is unverified. (×8) — Heatmap.tsx, index.js, getAttribution.ts, …
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗
What to do
- Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code
- Unreachable from the 15 application, 12 tooling and 32 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on your build/type-check — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
- no import path from any entry point (15 application, 12 tooling, 32 test roots considered) (×7) — Heatmap.tsx, index.js, getAttribution.ts, …
What to do
- Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
- Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. — UserProvider.tsx:4
- Declared in the root/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — dead weight and attack surface. Verify against build tooling before removing. (×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 Imports
- src/app/(main)/boards/BoardProvider.tsx → src/app/(main)/boards/boardComponentRegistry.tsx → src/app/(main)/links/[linkId]/LinkMetricsBar.tsx → src/app/(main)/pixels/[pixelId]/PixelMetricsBar.tsx → src/app/(main)/websites/[websiteId]/WebsiteChart.tsx → src/app/(main)/websites/[websiteId]/WebsiteMetricsBar.tsx → src/app/share/ShareProvider.tsx → src/components/charts/BarChart.tsx → src/components/common/Empty.tsx → src/components/common/ErrorMessage.tsx → src/components/common/Favicon.tsx → src/components/common/FilterLink.tsx → src/components/common/LinkButton.tsx → src/components/common/LoadingPanel.tsx → src/components/hooks/context/useBoard.ts → src/components/hooks/context/useShare.ts → src/components/hooks/index.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useEventDataPivotQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useEventDataPropertiesQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useEventDataQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/usePropertyArraySeriesQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/usePropertyDateSeriesQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/usePropertyFieldsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/usePropertyNumericSeriesQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/usePropertyNumericStatsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/usePropertySeriesQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/usePropertyValuesQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useReplaysQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useResultQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useRevenueChartQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useRevenueMetricsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useRevenueSessionsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useRevenueStatsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useSessionDataActivityStatsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useSessionDataPivotQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useSessionDataPropertiesQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useSessionDataValuesQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsiteCohortsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsiteEventsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsiteEventsSeriesQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsiteExpandedMetricsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsiteMetricsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsitePageviewsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsiteSegmentsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsiteSessionStatsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsiteSessionsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWebsiteStatsQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/queries/useWeeklyTrafficQuery.ts → src/components/hooks/useFilterParameters.ts → src/components/hooks/useFilters.ts → src/components/metrics/EventsChart.tsx → src/components/metrics/ListTable.tsx → src/components/metrics/MetricLabel.tsx → src/components/metrics/MetricsTable.tsx → src/components/metrics/PageviewsChart.tsx → src/components/metrics/WeeklyTraffic.tsx → src/components/metrics/WorldMap.tsx → src/app/(main)/boards/BoardProvider.tsx — BoardProvider.tsx
- src/app/(main)/websites/WebsitesDataTable.tsx → src/index.ts → src/app/(main)/websites/WebsitesDataTable.tsx — WebsitesDataTable.tsx
What to do
- Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 59% | Adequate — gated by R7 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 54% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 13% | Critical — gated by D8, D9, R4, R8, P2, P3, P5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 51% | Adequate — gated by D29, D36, D38 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 62 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — no source files detected — code composition not applicable
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — no csproj graph available
- AX4 Dependency direction — no csproj graph available
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Zero projects and zero LoC mean the codebase is trivial and has no structure to justify boundaries.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — No .NET solution found; no NuGet dependencies to scan for vulnerabilities.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D35 Change Coupling — no production change history to mine for change-coupling
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — No production classes were analyzable, so cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured (the solution likely failed to load or has no production code).
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — no C# methods found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a pnpm lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 55 finding(s)
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd-cloud.yml:15
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd-cloud.yml:21
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd.yml:28
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd.yml:31
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd.yml:34
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd.yml:37
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd.yml:45
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/cd.yml:53
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd.yml:109
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/cd.yml:120
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:15
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:16
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:21
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/stale-issues.yml:13
- High: pnpm-block-exotic-sub-dependencies pnpm-workspace.yaml:1
- High: pnpm-minimum-release-age pnpm-workspace.yaml:1
- High: pnpm-trust-policy pnpm-workspace.yaml:1
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
D18 · Solution Shape
- Dimension evaluation failed
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Warning — 18 finding(s)
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] pnpm-lock.yaml
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- sendReplayEvents (cognitive 21) src/recorder/index.js:197
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- Medium: gcm-no-tag-length src/lib/crypto.ts:41
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
Recommendation — 8 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 1 finding(s)
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 18 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet (no .NET solution) | — | dotnet (no .NET solution): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 1 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 78 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |