banking-kata-java — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Band capped at Weak: the weakest category (Security, 0%) reads Critical — the cover never out-promises the category table.

Template / example. This repo declares itself a template, kata, sample or demo — code to read or copy, not operate — so the ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A and what remains is judged accordingly.

This system is a small, well-structured asset with a health score of 48%, indicating it is workable but carries significant operational risk. While the code itself is clean and the domain logic is sound, the system lacks the operational safeguards required for reliable production use. The primary concern is not the code quality, but the readiness to deploy and maintain it safely.

The value at stake is modest, with a rebuild cost of approximately €7,500. This low barrier to entry means the business is not locked into a fragile legacy, but it also means there is little excuse for leaving critical gaps in operational safety. The system’s small size allows for rapid remediation, making it an ideal candidate for quick wins that significantly reduce risk.

The most critical theme is operational fragility. With a readiness score of 28%, the system lacks basic health checks, immutable deployment tags, and documented disaster recovery procedures. This exposes the business to extended outages and slow recovery times, directly impacting service reliability and customer trust. Without these basics, even a minor incident could lead to significant business disruption.

A second theme is security exposure. Seven leaked secrets were detected in configuration files, creating an immediate vulnerability. While the code architecture is strong, these credential leaks undermine the entire security posture. Addressing this is the highest-leverage action, as it resolves the most severe risk with minimal effort. The system’s maturity is moderate, but without proper documentation and testing visibility, onboarding new engineers remains difficult.

The system’s strengths lie in its clean code and solid domain modeling, which ensure that future changes are manageable. However, these technical merits are overshadowed by operational gaps. Focus first on resolving the leaked secrets and implementing basic health checks and backup procedures. These actions provide the most immediate protection for the business, turning a fragile asset into a reliable one.

Code Health 95% ★ Exemplary Architecture 82% Strong Maturity 59% Adequate · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 28% Weak · gated by D13, P5 Security 57% Adequate · gated by D28 Domain Modelling 81% Adequate · gated by DM7

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 28% · 46% weightSecurity 57% · 25% weightMaturity 59% · 14% weightDomain Modelling 81% · 8% weightArchitecture 82% · 4% weightCode Health 95% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 28 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 48 → ~63.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (87+)

87 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) adapter-persistence-jpa/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/jpa/JpaBankAccountStorage.java
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/common/guards/LongGuard.java
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/acl/FundsDepositedConverter.java
D8 · Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
D10 · No assertions: should_find_multiple_added_bank_accounts adapter-base/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/base/BankAccountStorageTest.java
D10 · No assertions: should_return_added_bank_account adapter-base/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/base/BankAccountStorageTest.java
D10 · No assertions: should_execute_without_error adapter-base/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/base/EventBusTest.java
D10 · No assertions: should_return_false_when_customer_not_exists adapter-microservice-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/microservice/real/RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java
D10 · No assertions: should_return_true_when_user_is_blacklisted adapter-microservice-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/microservice/real/RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java
D10 · No assertions: should_return_true_when_user_is_whitelisted adapter-microservice-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/microservice/real/RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java
D10 · No assertions: should_return_false_when_user_not_exists adapter-thirdparty-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayConsumerTest.java
D10 · No assertions: should_return_true_when_user_exists adapter-thirdparty-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayConsumerTest.java
D10 · No assertions: pactVerificationTestTemplate z-thirdparty-provider-contracts/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayProviderTest.java
D10 · No assertions: should_return_current_date_time adapter-time-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/time/fake/FakeDateTimeServiceTest.java
D10 · No assertions: pactVerificationTestTemplate startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/restapi/spring/BankingProviderContractTest.java
D10 · No assertions: contextLoads startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/startup/BankingApplicationTests.java
D10 · No assertions: should_consume_message_from_queue adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/RabbitMQEventBusTest.java
D10 · No assertions: should_send_dto_to_default_queue adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/RabbitMQEventBusTest.java
D10 · No assertions: pactVerificationTestTemplate z-customer-microservice/src/test/java/RealCustomerGatewayProviderTest.java
D10 · Test project verifies nothing: adapter-messaging-rabbitmq adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/RabbitMQEventBusTest.java
D10 · Test project verifies nothing: adapter-microservice-real adapter-microservice-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/microservice/real/RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java
D10 · Test project verifies nothing: adapter-thirdparty-real adapter-thirdparty-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayConsumerTest.java
D10 · Test project verifies nothing: adapter-time-fake adapter-time-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/time/fake/FakeDateTimeServiceTest.java
D10 · Test project verifies nothing: z-customer-microservice z-customer-microservice/src/test/java/RealCustomerGatewayProviderTest.java
D10 · Test project verifies nothing: z-thirdparty-provider-contracts z-thirdparty-provider-contracts/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayProviderTest.java
D13 · REDACTED
D13 · REDACTED
D13 · REDACTED
D13 · REDACTED
D13 · REDACTED
D17 · TodoComment adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adminrabbitmq/AdminAMQPTest.java
D17 · TodoComment adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adminrabbitmq/AdminAMQPTest.java
D17 · TodoComment adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java
D17 · TodoComment adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java
D17 · TodoComment adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java
D17 · TodoComment adapter-persistence-redis/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/redis/RedisBankAccountStorageTest.java
D17 · TodoComment adapter-restapi-spring/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driver/restapi/spring/clients/BankingClient.java
D17 · TodoComment adapter-restapi-spring/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driver/restapi/spring/controllers/BankAccountController.java
D17 · TodoComment adapter-restapi-spring/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driver/restapi/spring/fake/FakeAuthenticationProvider.java
D17 · TodoComment core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/OpenAccountUseCase.java
D17 · TodoComment core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/facade/DepositFundsUseCaseFacadeTest.java
D17 · TodoComment core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/facade/common/TestFacade.java
D17 · TodoComment core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/usecases/OpenAccountUseCaseTest.java
D17 · TodoComment startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/restapi/spring/BankingProviderContractTest.java
D17 · TodoComment startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/startup/BankAccountControllerSystemTest.java
D17 · TodoComment startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/startup/BankAccountControllerSystemTest.java
D17 · TodoComment startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/startup/BankAccountControllerSystemTest.java
D17 · TodoComment test-fixtures/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/ports/driven/BankAccountDtoTestBuilder.java
D17 · TodoComment z-customer-microservice/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/CustomerApplication.java
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D28 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: ApplicationEventBus.java ↔ FacadeFactory.java adapter-messaging-inmemory/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/messaging/inmemory/ApplicationEventBus.java
D35 · Change coupling: DepositFundsUseCase.java ↔ WithdrawFundsUseCase.java core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/DepositFundsUseCase.java
D35 · Change coupling: RandomAccountIdGenerator.java ↔ RandomAccountNumberGenerator.java adapter-generation-random/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/generation/random/RandomAccountIdGenerator.java
D35 · Change coupling: DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java ↔ OpenAccountRequestBuilder.java test-fixtures/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java
D35 · Change coupling: OpenAccountUseCase.java ↔ FacadeFactory.java core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/crud/usecases/OpenAccountUseCase.java
D36 · REDACTED
D36 · REDACTED
P12 · Coverage collected but not gated
DM7 · Repository for a non-root entity: JpaBankAccountDataAccessor → BankAccountRecord adapter-persistence-jpa/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/jpa/internal/JpaBankAccountDataAccessor.java

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,500–€13,000

Cost to rebuild	€2,500–€13,000 (0.1 person-years (42–132 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	REDACTED — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 48% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€7,500 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 28% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain REDACTED (×1.6) — DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, domain model × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.

+17.6 pts · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning

Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

+17.6 pts · REDACTED effort · DR & Backup

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.

+16.4 pts · REDACTED effort · Deployment & Rollback

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · REDACTED · Value at risk

This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 28%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (3,173 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 28%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · REDACTED · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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

62 modules, 84 dependencies. Every dependency points down the layering — no cycles.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 22 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 adapter.driven.generation.fake.internal	2 adapter.driven.persistence.jpa.internal	3 adapter.driven.persistence.redis.internal	4 core.internal.cleanarch.domain.common.events	5 core.ports.driven.events	6 core.ports.driver	7 core.ports.driver.accounts.depositfunds	8 core.ports.driver.accounts.openaccount	9 core.ports.driver.accounts.withdrawfunds	10 core.internal.cleanarch.domain.accounts	11 core.ports.driven	19 adapter.driven.persistence.jpa.mapper	21 adapter.driven.persistence.redis.mapper	24 core.internal.cleanarch.domain.common.guards	25 core.internal.cleanarch.domain.scoring	32 core.ports.driver.accounts.viewaccount	36 core.internal.cleanarch.usecases	37 core	39 core.common.verifies
1 adapter.driven.generation.fake.internal
2 adapter.driven.persistence.jpa.internal
3 adapter.driven.persistence.redis.internal
4 core.internal.cleanarch.domain.common.events
5 core.ports.driven.events
6 core.ports.driver
7 core.ports.driver.accounts.depositfunds
8 core.ports.driver.accounts.openaccount
9 core.ports.driver.accounts.withdrawfunds
10 core.internal.cleanarch.domain.accounts				3
11 core.ports.driven					1
12 com.optivem.kata.banking					1						1
13 adapter.driven.generation.fake	2										2
14 adapter.driven.generation.random											2
15 adapter.driven.messaging.fake					1						1
16 adapter.driven.messaging.inmemory					1						1
17 adapter.driven.microservice.fake											2
18 adapter.driven.microservice.real											1
19 adapter.driven.persistence.jpa.mapper		1									1
20 adapter.driven.persistence.mongo											2
21 adapter.driven.persistence.redis.mapper			1								1
22 core.common.builders.ports.driven										1	1
23 core.internal.cleanarch.acl				2	4					8	5
24 core.internal.cleanarch.domain.common.guards										2
25 core.internal.cleanarch.domain.scoring										8	2
26 core.internal.crud.usecases								2			7
27 adapter.driven.persistence.jpa		2									2	1
28 adapter.driven.persistence.redis			2								2		1
29 adapter.driver.restapi.spring.configurations											1				1
30 core.internal.cleanarch.domain.common										2				4
31 core.internal.crud.common														2
32 core.ports.driver.accounts.viewaccount															1
33 adapter.driver.restapi.spring.clients								2								1
34 adapter.driver.restapi.spring.controllers								2								1
35 core.common.builders.requests							1	1	1							1
36 core.internal.cleanarch.usecases				3		2	1	2	1	14	5				1	2
37 core							1	2			7					2	3
38 core.common.factories						3	3	6	3		21							1
39 core.common.verifies							2											2
40 core.common																		1	3

Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 95% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.3

At a glance — Architecture · 82% · Strong ·

The Good

D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.6 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0

The Bad

AX10 · Repo Code composition 6.1

At a glance — Maturity · 59% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 6.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.7 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 28% · Weak · gated by D13, P5 ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 7.2 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0

The Bad

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

D13 · .NET / C# REDACTED Scanning 0.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0

At a glance — Security · 57% · Adequate · gated by D28 ·

The Good

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 7.7 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 9.3

The Ugly

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 81% · Adequate · gated by DM7 ·

The Good

DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 10.0 DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 10.0 DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 10.0 DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 10.0

The Ugly

DM7 · Repo Repository granularity 3.5

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
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	24	REDACTED / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection	11	REDACTED / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	7	REDACTED

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the seven leaked secrets, prioritizing the environment files, to secure sensitive credentials. Establish a robust disaster recovery strategy by codifying backups and geo-recovery in infrastructure as code, while ensuring deployments include health checks and immutable image tags for reliable rollbacks. Finally, improve software quality by adding direct assertions to the identified failing tests and maintaining a changelog to track release history.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.	+17.6 pts	Low	REDACTED Scanning
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.	+17.6 pts	REDACTED	DR & Backup
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.	+16.4 pts	REDACTED	Deployment & Rollback
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+16.4 pts	REDACTED	Release Hygiene
Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.	+3.9 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2).	+2.8 pts	Low	Documentation Quality
Resolve the 42 No direct assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java (8), OpenAccountUseCaseTest.java (7), BankAccountTest.java (6).	+4.3 pts	REDACTED	Test Quality
Resolve the 16 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2).	+4.0 pts	REDACTED	Secrets (history)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 56 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 4% slop · 12% mixed · 84% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.9	Slop	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.4	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: REDACTED IaC: REDACTED
adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java	6.0	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/restapi/spring/BankingProviderContractTest.java	6.7	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/startup/BankAccountControllerSystemTest.java	6.9	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
adapter-microservice-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/microservice/real/RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java	7.2	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions: should_return_false_when_customer_not_exists
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/usecases/OpenAccountUseCaseTest.java	7.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adminrabbitmq/AdminAMQPTest.java	7.3	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
adapter-thirdparty-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayConsumerTest.java	7.4	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions: should_return_false_when_user_not_exists
adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/RabbitMQEventBusTest.java	7.4	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions: should_consume_message_from_queue

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 — 30

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 — 67

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 — 51

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

Could not be resolved — 43

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. 33 of 36 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 36 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D9D10D13D15D17D19D21D28D29D31D34D35AX10AX5DM1DM11DM12DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8DM9M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P5P6

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, 137 of 148 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 01a0c09f-655f-70f6-8de9-8673067e1f1c.

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.

D11 Test Reliability — 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. Test source is present (.java) and this repository declares a JVM test suite (repository root, Gradle), but it was not re-run: the analyzer environment could not run it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
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. Dependency Hygiene ran out of its 5-minute budget before it had finished, so what it reports here is a floor rather than a complete count. The rows above are real and stand; what is not known is how many more there are. This is a limit of the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D14 License Compliance — evaluation did not complete — License Compliance not included (check did not complete) — excluded from the score.
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. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (8 contributor(s) across 546 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 90% of the history; the other 7 hold 1.4% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: D22 has no public-API collector for any other ecosystem, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (go.mod, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which project references which — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX4 Dependency direction — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the direction each project reference points — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX8 Test isolation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which projects are test projects, and what they reference — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — 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. Arm one resolves each comparison operand to the domain member it judges, and that binding exists only in a Roslyn compilation, which this run did not load. Arm two ran over the neutral model because this repository's frontend declares whether each construction is produced or passed. A rule decided in two places would not appear above.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check 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.
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.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
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.
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.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
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.
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 (3): D19, D21, 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 Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 5 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

5 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java:24

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java:65

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)adapter-persistence-jpa/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/jpa/JpaBankAccountStorage.java:56

What to do

Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with BankAccount.java, LongGuard.java. — 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 BankAccount.java, FundsDepositedConverter.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with JpaBankAccountStorage.java. — 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?

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

80 test methods: 80 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality7.2 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 57 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 80 tests (3 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty).

No assertions: should_find_multiple_added_bank_accounts · ×15adapter-base/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/base/BankAccountStorageTest.java:37

Test project verifies nothing: adapter-messaging-rabbitmq · ×6adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/RabbitMQEventBusTest.java:56

No direct assertions: should_return_next_element_when_there_is_one_element · ×42adapter-generation-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/generation/fake/internal/FakeLongGeneratorTest.java:23

Test project verifies nothing: adapter-persistence-fakeadapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:63

What to do

Resolve the 42 No direct assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java (8), OpenAccountUseCaseTest.java (7), BankAccountTest.java (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (42 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 15 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java (3), BankAccountStorageTest.java (2), RealNationalIdentityGatewayConsumerTest.java (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with RabbitMQEventBusTest.java, RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java, RealNationalIdentityGatewayConsumerTest.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · REDACTED Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

7 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Enforce REDACTED 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?

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?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.3 / 10Stronggated by 19 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

19 deducted task-comment markers across 3173 LoC (0.4/KLoC) → score 9.3. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×19adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adminrabbitmq/AdminAMQPTest.java:31

What to do

Resolve the 19 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java (3), BankAccountControllerSystemTest.java (3), AdminAMQPTest.java (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityAdequate◐ 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 Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The single README is a solid TDD/Clean Architecture banking demo with an overview, business requirements, and architecture description. It also links to external resources (YouTube Meetups) and shows CI/QA badges but does not yet cover installation, usage, testing, or contribution guidance. The document clips mid-architecture at the scanner boundary before any of these standard sections appear; the outline confirms all listed sections exist so no section is marked missing.

Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×2README.md

What to do

Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_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?

D28 · Secrets (history)0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: REDACTED 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 REDACTED. 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

16 finding(s): 0 critical, 16 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 16 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)7.7 / 10Adequategated by 6 critical findings✓ 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 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 finding(s): 0 critical, 6 high, 5 medium, 0 low. 6 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. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `gradlew` (line 72, line 173) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 5 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 6 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 (6 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?

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.3 / 10Stronggated by 7 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

7 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 7 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 7 REDACTED IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.7 / 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 0.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

14 of 15 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/OpenAccountUseCase.java. Counted over 15 of the 177 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

What to do

Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.6 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: DepositFundsUseCase.java↔WithdrawFundsUseCase.java 62%; RandomAccountIdGenerator.java↔RandomAccountNumberGenerator.java 60%; DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java↔OpenAccountRequestBuilder.java 60%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: ApplicationEventBus.java ↔ FacadeFactory.javaadapter-messaging-inmemory/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/messaging/inmemory/ApplicationEventBus.java

Change coupling: DepositFundsUseCase.java ↔ WithdrawFundsUseCase.java · ×4core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/DepositFundsUseCase.java

What to do

Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with ApplicationEventBus.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with DepositFundsUseCase.java, RandomAccountIdGenerator.java, DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d35_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.

AX10 · Code composition6.1 / 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?

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?

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM11 · Constructible invalid state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.

Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain types receive the time and randomness their rules depend on, rather than reading the process clock or a global random source directly — an ambient read makes the rule it feeds untestable at the instant that matters and lets two reads inside one operation disagree.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated, C#/VB only): domain-layer types scanned for ambient reads — DateTime/DateTimeOffset.Now/UtcNow/Today, Random.Shared, new Random(), Stopwatch.GetTimestamp — resolved against the semantic model, with a comment/string-stripped token fallback only where resolution fails. Body reads are scored; field/property initialisers are surfaced unscored. Apply/When folds excluded (ES1 owns them). Deterministic, symbol-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state — private/init-only setters, and collections handed out as read-only views rather than the mutable backing collection — instead of exposing writable state that bypasses invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM7 · Repository granularity3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether repositories are per aggregate root (not per child entity) and keep the persistence query handle behind the contract, so the root's invariants can't be bypassed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): repository abstraction detection; repositories over non-aggregate-root entities flagged, and (C#/VB) repository INTERFACES whose members return a live persistence query handle (IQueryable/DbSet/IMongoQueryable) — implementations and specification evaluators are out of population by design, since composing a query internally is what an implementation is for. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: repositories + aggregate roots by NAME convention; per-root repository rule checked within the set.

`JpaBankAccountDataAccessor` is a repository over `BankAccountRecord`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `BankAccountRecord` through its owning aggregate instead. — adapter-persistence-jpa/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/jpa/internal/JpaBankAccountDataAccessor.java:9

What to do

Define repositories per aggregate root and keep the query handle inside them; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether one domain rule is decided — or one measurement produced — in more than one place, rather than living on the type that owns it.

Method: Neutral body surface plus Roslyn (DDD-gated), two arms. DECISION (Roslyn only): a predicate over a domain type's members judged in two or more types, where none of those decisions live on the owning type — operands of comparisons and relational property patterns only, so a member merely passed as an argument is not judged. DERIVATION: a plain all-numeric carrier of ≥2 members, with no base type and exactly one constructor, CONSTRUCTED as the result of a method (returned or assigned, never inline as an argument) in two or more types other than its own — the same measurement produced twice, which centralising the judgement does not fix. DERIVATION runs on every language whose frontend declares the produced-or-passed fact per construction (Roslyn and the Java sidecar today); a target with only the derivation arm carries an engine gap naming the decision arm as not assessed, and a frontend that declares nothing keeps the dimension not measured rather than clean. Single-member rules, test code and generated code are out of population for both. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.0 / 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

Add a README to the 24 of 24 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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?

P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

What to do

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 & 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.
The pipeline declares a deployment environment, but whether required reviewers / protection rules are attached to it lives in repository settings we cannot read — confirm the gate is enforced before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

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?

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?

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	95%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Architecture	82%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	59%	Adequate — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	28%	Weak — gated by D13, P5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	57%	Adequate — gated by D28	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	81%	Adequate — gated by DM7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

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.

P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.

Not evidenced — 3 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.

Not included — 86 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — 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.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — no .java test runner
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency Hygiene incomplete (time budget)
D14 License Compliance — License Compliance not included (check did not complete)
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.java) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. 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
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART class graph, and this repository's production source is .java, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
DM10 One transaction, one aggregate — no repository writes detected — no operation to judge against the one-aggregate rule
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 1 event handler(s); 5 CQRS handler(s)
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (an Axon event-sourcing framework (@Aggregate/@CommandHandler/@EventSourcingHandler annotations))
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from 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
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) 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 — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
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
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — 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
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 — 30 finding(s)

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×16

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

D13 · REDACTED Scanning · Leaked secret · ×7

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×6

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1

Boundary-crossing change coupling: ApplicationEventBus.java ↔ FacadeFactory.java adapter-messaging-inmemory/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/messaging/inmemory/ApplicationEventBus.java — `adapter-messaging-inmemory/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/messaging/inmemory/ApplicationEventBus.java` (context adapter-messaging-inmemory) and `test-facade/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/factories/FacadeFactory.java` (context test-facade) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `fc81eb29` Package Names - Cleanup; `3c42b428` #44 Refactoring - Driver Ports with plain DTOs - Event Bus (at that commit the files were still `src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/infra/real/events/EventPublisherToQueue.java` and `src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/factories/FacadeFactory.java`); `7aa02689` #33 OpenAccountUseCase - Publishing events (brought back changes from… (at that commit the files were still `src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/infra/real/events/EventPublisherToQueue.java` and `src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/factories/FacadeFactory.java`) — run `git show` on any of them.

Serious — 67 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×19

TodoComment adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adminrabbitmq/AdminAMQPTest.java:31 — //todo - do some assert — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adminrabbitmq/AdminAMQPTest.java:46 — //todo - do some assert — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:8 — // TODO: VC: Incorporate this into main test later — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:150 — // TODO: VC: Bring back — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:162 — // TODO: VC: Bring back — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment adapter-persistence-redis/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/redis/RedisBankAccountStorageTest.java:16 — // @ContextConfiguration // TODO: VC: Probably ring this back and delete ActiveProfiles; ActiveProfiles was temporarily added — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment adapter-restapi-spring/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driver/restapi/spring/clients/BankingClient.java:12 — // TODO: VC: This should be in a separate module, it's some consumer, e.g. loan — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment adapter-restapi-spring/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driver/restapi/spring/controllers/BankAccountController.java:33 — // TODO: Refactor to centralized error handling — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment adapter-restapi-spring/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driver/restapi/spring/fake/FakeAuthenticationProvider.java:14 — // TODO: VC: Probably move to separate module? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/OpenAccountUseCase.java:54 — // TODO: VC: Value object for national identity number — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/facade/DepositFundsUseCaseFacadeTest.java:25 — // TODO: VC: DELETE — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/facade/common/TestFacade.java:26 — // TODO: VC: This is temporary, re-design to remove this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/usecases/OpenAccountUseCaseTest.java:59 — // TODO: VC: Make configurable so that we can run same test twice — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/restapi/spring/BankingProviderContractTest.java:34 — // TODO: Use Pact Broker — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/startup/BankAccountControllerSystemTest.java:63 — // TODO: VC: This dependency should only exist in E2E, and maybe demos? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/startup/BankAccountControllerSystemTest.java:105 — // TODO: Test with invalid data - e.g. empty fields — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/startup/BankAccountControllerSystemTest.java:106 — // TODO: Test with non-existent national identity number — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment test-fixtures/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/ports/driven/BankAccountDtoTestBuilder.java:80 — // TODO: VC: Consider separate file — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment z-customer-microservice/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/CustomerApplication.java:7 — // TODO: VC: Remove this after moving dependencies into specific projects — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×15

No assertions: should_find_multiple_added_bank_accounts adapter-base/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/base/BankAccountStorageTest.java:37 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_return_added_bank_account adapter-base/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/base/BankAccountStorageTest.java:31 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_execute_without_error adapter-base/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/base/EventBusTest.java:20 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_return_false_when_customer_not_exists adapter-microservice-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/microservice/real/RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java:115 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_return_true_when_user_is_blacklisted adapter-microservice-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/microservice/real/RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java:101 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_return_true_when_user_is_whitelisted adapter-microservice-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/microservice/real/RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java:108 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_return_false_when_user_not_exists adapter-thirdparty-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayConsumerTest.java:80 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_return_true_when_user_exists adapter-thirdparty-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayConsumerTest.java:74 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: pactVerificationTestTemplate z-thirdparty-provider-contracts/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayProviderTest.java:25 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_return_current_date_time adapter-time-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/time/fake/FakeDateTimeServiceTest.java:19 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: pactVerificationTestTemplate startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/restapi/spring/BankingProviderContractTest.java:51 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: contextLoads startup/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/startup/BankingApplicationTests.java:16 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_consume_message_from_queue adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/RabbitMQEventBusTest.java:56 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: should_send_dto_to_default_queue adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/RabbitMQEventBusTest.java:51 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: pactVerificationTestTemplate z-customer-microservice/src/test/java/RealCustomerGatewayProviderTest.java:35 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · REDACTED IaC · ×7

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D10 · Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing · ×6

Test project verifies nothing: adapter-messaging-rabbitmq adapter-messaging-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/RabbitMQEventBusTest.java:56 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 2 of 2 tests in `adapter-messaging-rabbitmq` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: adapter-microservice-real adapter-microservice-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/microservice/real/RealCustomerGatewayConsumerTest.java:115 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 3 of 3 tests in `adapter-microservice-real` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: adapter-thirdparty-real adapter-thirdparty-real/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayConsumerTest.java:80 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 2 of 2 tests in `adapter-thirdparty-real` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: adapter-time-fake adapter-time-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/time/fake/FakeDateTimeServiceTest.java:19 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `adapter-time-fake` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: z-customer-microservice z-customer-microservice/src/test/java/RealCustomerGatewayProviderTest.java:35 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `z-customer-microservice` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: z-thirdparty-provider-contracts z-thirdparty-provider-contracts/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/thirdparty/real/RealNationalIdentityGatewayProviderTest.java:25 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `z-thirdparty-provider-contracts` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×4

Change coupling: DepositFundsUseCase.java ↔ WithdrawFundsUseCase.java core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/DepositFundsUseCase.java — `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/DepositFundsUseCase.java` and `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/WithdrawFundsUseCase.java` change together 62% of the time (18 of the 29 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 18 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9b6e34af` Refactoring; `23152748` #44 Refactoring - Driver Ports with plain DTOs (at that commit the files were still `src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/DepositFundsUseCase.java` and `src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/WithdrawFundsUseCase.java`); `9c8c4356` #30 Application - Pipelinr (refactoring) (at that commit the files were still `src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/usecases/depositfunds/DepositFundsUseCase.java` and `src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/usecases/withdrawfunds/WithdrawFundsUseCase.java`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: RandomAccountIdGenerator.java ↔ RandomAccountNumberGenerator.java adapter-generation-random/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/generation/random/RandomAccountIdGenerator.java — `adapter-generation-random/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/generation/random/RandomAccountIdGenerator.java` and `adapter-generation-random/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/generation/random/RandomAccountNumberGenerator.java` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `2d22001f` Standardize ProfilesName static variables and make available all requ…; `e57ea931` Package Names - Cleanup; `ea978f8e` #77 REST API - Fake Authentication Provider (at that commit the files were still `adapter-generation-random/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapters/generation/random/RandomAccountIdGenerator.java` and `adapter-generation-random/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapters/generation/random/RandomAccountNumberGenerator.java`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java ↔ OpenAccountRequestBuilder.java test-fixtures/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java — `test-fixtures/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java` and `test-fixtures/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/OpenAccountRequestBuilder.java` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `ae7ccab1` Refactoring (at that commit the files were still `src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java` and `src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/OpenAccountRequestBuilder.java`); `6151ebf6` Refactoring - Test Builders (at that commit the files were still `src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java` and `src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/OpenAccountRequestBuilder.java`); `55c4d580` Refactoring - Test Builders (at that commit the files were still `src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/DepositFundsRequestBuilder.java` and `src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/requests/OpenAccountRequestBuilder.java`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: OpenAccountUseCase.java ↔ FacadeFactory.java core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/crud/usecases/OpenAccountUseCase.java — `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/crud/usecases/OpenAccountUseCase.java` and `test-facade/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/factories/FacadeFactory.java` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `3b97d40a` Refactoring - Contract Tests - Renamed CustomerProvider to CustomerGa…; `0520e6a8` Refactoring - Contract Tests - Renamed CustomerProvider to CustomerGa…; `954953be` #75 Contract Testing - Customer Microservice - Use Case — run `git show` on any of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java:24 — core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java:24-35 | core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/ESBankAccount.java:25-36 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java` and `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/ESBankAccount.java` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java:24` 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.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/common/guards/LongGuard.java:4 — core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/common/guards/LongGuard.java:4-15 | core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/crud/common/guards/LongGuard.java:4-15 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/common/guards/LongGuard.java` and `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/crud/common/guards/LongGuard.java` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java:65 — core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java:65-71 | core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/ESBankAccount.java:66-72 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java` and `core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/ESBankAccount.java` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/acl/FundsDepositedConverter.java:7 — core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/acl/FundsDepositedConverter.java:7-13 | core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/acl/FundsWithdrawnConverter.java:7-13 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `event` to `FundsDeposited` in one and `FundsWithdrawn` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) adapter-persistence-jpa/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/jpa/JpaBankAccountStorage.java:56 — adapter-persistence-jpa/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/jpa/JpaBankAccountStorage.java:56-63 | adapter-persistence-jpa/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/jpa/JpaBankAccountStorage.java:68-75 — 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 `adapter-persistence-jpa/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/jpa/JpaBankAccountStorage.java:56` 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. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.

DM7 · Repository granularity · Repository for a non-root entity · ×1

Repository for a non-root entity: JpaBankAccountDataAccessor → BankAccountRecord adapter-persistence-jpa/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/jpa/internal/JpaBankAccountDataAccessor.java:9 — `JpaBankAccountDataAccessor` is a repository over `BankAccountRecord`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `BankAccountRecord` through its owning aggregate instead.

P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Coverage collected but not gated · ×1

Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

P5 · DR & Backup · No DR/backup evidence · ×1

No DR/backup evidence — 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.

Minor — 51 finding(s)

D10 · Test Quality · No direct assertions · ×42

No direct assertions: should_return_next_element_when_there_is_one_element adapter-generation-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/generation/fake/internal/FakeLongGeneratorTest.java:23 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 4 of 6 tests in `adapter-generation-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_return_next_elements_when_there_are_multiple_elements adapter-generation-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/generation/fake/internal/FakeLongGeneratorTest.java:34 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 4 of 6 tests in `adapter-generation-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_return_next_element_when_there_is_one_element adapter-generation-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/generation/fake/internal/FakeStringGeneratorTest.java:23 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 4 of 6 tests in `adapter-generation-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_return_next_elements_when_there_are_multiple_elements adapter-generation-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/generation/fake/internal/FakeStringGeneratorTest.java:34 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 4 of 6 tests in `adapter-generation-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_not_be_able_to_change_bank_account_after_add adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:63 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 8 of 8 tests in `adapter-persistence-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_not_be_able_to_change_bank_account_after_find adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:84 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 8 of 8 tests in `adapter-persistence-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_not_be_able_to_change_bank_account_after_update adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:107 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 8 of 8 tests in `adapter-persistence-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_retrieve_updated_bank_account_after_update adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:38 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 8 of 8 tests in `adapter-persistence-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_return_bank_account_when_account_number_exists adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:26 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 8 of 8 tests in `adapter-persistence-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_return_empty_result_when_account_number_does_not_exist adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:19 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 8 of 8 tests in `adapter-persistence-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_when_attempt_add_bank_account_with_same_account_number_twice adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:133 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 8 of 8 tests in `adapter-persistence-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_when_attempt_to_update_non_existent_bank_account adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:155 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 8 of 8 tests in `adapter-persistence-fake` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_given_non_positive_value core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/AccountIdTest.java:14 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_given_null_account_holder_name core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/BankAccountTest.java:38 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_given_null_account_id core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/BankAccountTest.java:20 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_given_null_account_number core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/BankAccountTest.java:26 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_given_null_balance core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/BankAccountTest.java:51 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_given_null_national_identity_number core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/BankAccountTest.java:32 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_given_null_opening_date core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/BankAccountTest.java:44 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_return_score_A_given_positive_odd_aggregation core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/ScoreCalculatorTest.java:29 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_return_score_B_given_positive_even_aggregation core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/ScoreCalculatorTest.java:35 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_return_score_C_given_non_positive_aggregation core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/domain/ScoreCalculatorTest.java:41 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_deposit_funds_given_valid_request core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/usecases/DepositFundsUseCaseTest.java:62 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_given_empty_account_number core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/usecases/DepositFundsUseCaseTest.java:102 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: should_throw_exception_given_non_existent_account_number core/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/usecases/DepositFundsUseCaseTest.java:113 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 30 of 37 tests in `core` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
+ 17 more in this group — see findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×2

Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md — No build/run/gradle commands and no prerequisites (e.g. Keycloak, RabbitMQ) are described in any order. Add a short prerequisites section listing Keycloak client setup, RabbitMQ/docker, and the required Java version. Then add instructions for running Gradle tests, integration, and system tests.
Documentation: no usage examples README.md — No 'how to run it' or usage examples. Add a short runnable example showing how to open an account and deposit funds (or the relevant use case) so new readers can try it themselves.

D10 · Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing · ×1

Test project verifies nothing: adapter-persistence-fake adapter-persistence-fake/src/test/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/adapter/driven/persistence/fake/FakeBankAccountStorageExtendedTest.java:63 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 8 of 8 tests in `adapter-persistence-fake` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 14 of 15 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 15 of the 177 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/usecases/OpenAccountUseCase.java, core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/ESBankAccount.java, core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/domain/accounts/BankAccount.java, core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/crud/usecases/OpenAccountUseCase.java, test-fixtures/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/factories/CleanArchUseCaseFactory.java, test-fixtures/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/common/builders/ports/driven/BankAccountDtoTestBuilder.java, core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/internal/cleanarch/acl/BankAccountRepositoryImpl.java, core/src/main/java/com/optivem/kata/banking/core/Facade.java (and 6 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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.

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.)

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-41c156c577a74cd1a2aa2d40a91acba3/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	26	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-41c156c577a74cd1a2aa2d40a91acba3/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	18	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 .	11	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)	—	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	7	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	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)	—	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).	0	—

Run 01a0c09f-655f-70f6-8de9-8673067e1f1c · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Valentinajemuovic/banking-Kata-Java

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 95% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 82% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 59% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 28% · Weak · gated by D13, P5 ·

At a glance — Security · 57% · Adequate · gated by D28 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 81% · Adequate · gated by DM7 ·

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

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts