vardius/go-api-boilerplate

Executive summary

vardius/go-api-boilerplate scores 43 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged. Watchdog judged it as a template, sample or demo, meant to be read or copied, so the dimensions about building, releasing and running a product don't apply, and its lenses are rated against a lower bar. The score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 29 and is rated Weak. Its REDACTED Scanning dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning and to resolve the 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 43 to about 55.

111 findings are critical: 73 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, 16 in Static Analysis (SAST), eight in Secrets (history), five in IaC & Container Security, three in Outbox / dual-write, two in Dependency Hygiene, two in REDACTED Scanning, one in Change Coupling and one in Circular Imports.

Watchdog couldn't measure 15 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Documentation Quality and Internal API Consistency, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 12,237 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €21,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 87 ★ Exemplary Architecture 78 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 56 Adequate, capped by Knowledge Freshness and Architecture documentation Production Readiness 29 Weak, capped by REDACTED Scanning, Dependency Hygiene, Security & performance tooling, DR & Backup and Outbound HTTP resilience Security and Compliance 48 Adequate, capped by Secrets (history), Static Analysis (SAST), Dependency Vulnerabilities and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Domain Modelling 77 ★ Exemplary Event-Driven 68 Strong Event Sourcing 75 Strong Accessibility 57 Adequate Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

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

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

Production Readiness 29 · counts for 45%Security and Compliance 48 · counts for 25%Maturity 56 · counts for 14%Accessibility 57 · counts for 8%Event-Driven 68 · counts for 4%Event Sourcing 75 · counts for 2%Domain Modelling 77 · counts for 1%Architecture 78 · counts for 1%Code Health 87 · counts for 0%Performance 100 · counts for 0%

If Production Readiness rose from 29 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 43 to about 55.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 92%Tests 8%

New since the last survey: 16 findings

These 16 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 8 October 2026.

Secrets (history) · REDACTED
Secrets (history) · REDACTED
Secrets (history) · REDACTED
Secrets (history) · REDACTED
Secrets (history) · REDACTED
Secrets (history) · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling: REDACTED ↔ event_bus.go REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED

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

Fixed since the last survey: 2 findings

These 2 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 8 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Secrets (history) · REDACTED: REDACTED REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED

Rebuild cost: about €21,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€7,100 to €36,000, for 119 to 377 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Very high, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 43. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Small: 12,237 lines of product code

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

Top priorities

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

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

Raises the score by about 12 points · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning

Resolve the 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 2 Deprecated module finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €21,000 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 29 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

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

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 12 points for low effort, because it clears the 2 REDACTED Scanning findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

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

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

104 modules, with 117 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 64 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 cmd.web.src.components.common.ErrorBoundary	2 cmd.web.src.types	3 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/application/config	4 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence	5 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/application/access	6 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/application/config	7 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/identity	8 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/metadata	9 cmd.web.src.components.common.LanguageSwitcher	13 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence	14 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/auth	15 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/domain	20 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/commandbus	21 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/eventbus	22 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/eventstore	24 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/domain/client	25 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/domain/token	29 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/domain/user	34 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/application/services	37 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/application/services
1 cmd.web.src.components.common.ErrorBoundary
2 cmd.web.src.types
3 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/application/config
4 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence
5 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/application/access
6 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/application/config
7 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/identity
8 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/metadata
9 cmd.web.src.components.common.LanguageSwitcher		1
10 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/memory			2	6
11 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo			2	8
12 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql			2	8
13 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence					1
14 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/auth							3
15 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/domain							1
16 cmd.web.src.components.common	3								1
17 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/memory					1					4
18 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo					1					4
19 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql					1					4
20 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/commandbus												1
21 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/eventbus												1
22 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/eventstore												1
23 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/application/eventhandler				2										1
24 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/domain/client				1								4	1
25 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/domain/token				1								4	1
26 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http			1	2							1		1
27 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers				2									1
28 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler						1				1	1		1	1
29 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/domain/user					3					4		4	1
30 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http						1				1	1		1
31 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/eventbus/pubsub								1				2		3
32 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/eventbus/pushpull								1				2		3
33 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/pkg/eventstore/mongo							1					3			2
34 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/application/services			1	2							2		1	1		1	1
35 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/application/services/oauth2			1	5							2						2
36 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository														3	3	3	3
37 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/application/services						1				1	2		1	1				1
38 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/repository														2	2			3
39 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/domain			1																1
40 github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/domain						1														1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 87% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Go Cyclomatic Complexity 9.4 D2 · Go Cognitive Complexity 8.6 D3 · Go God Classes 9.6 D4 · Go Code Duplication 7.5 D17 · Go Explicit Debt 10.0 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 10.0 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 8.8 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 R3 · React / TS Large Files 10.0 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 9.6 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 7.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 10.0

The Ugly

X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 2.9

At a glance — Architecture · 78% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D5 · Go Coupling 10.0 D6 · Go Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D23 · Go Boundary Type-Coupling 10.0 D35 · Go Change Coupling 9.9 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 7.9

The Bad

D27 · Go Navigability 6.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 5.0

The Ugly

D26 · Go Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 56% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Go Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D21 · Go Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.7 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.0

The Ugly

D34 · Go Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 29% · Weak · gated by D13, R8, P3, P5, P7 ·

The Good

D9 · Go Test Distribution 10.0 D11 · Go Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · Go Dependency Hygiene 7.2 D14 · Go License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 8.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0 R6 · React / TS Tooling 10.0

The Bad

P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 3.5

The Ugly

D13 · Go REDACTED Scanning 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 48% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29, D30, D36 ·

The Good

D31 · Go IaC & Container Security 7.1 D43 · Go Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Go Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0

The Bad

D40 · Go Network Egress Confinement 6.0 D41 · Go Kernel & Syscall Confinement 6.0

The Ugly

D28 · Go Secrets (history) 2.0 D29 · Go Static Analysis (SAST) 2.0 D30 · Go Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0 D36 · Go Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 77% · Exemplary ·

The Good

DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 10.0 DM10 · Repo One transaction, one aggregate 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 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 10.0

The Bad

DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 5.5 DM7 · Repo Repository granularity 5.3

At a glance — Event-Driven · 68% · Strong ·

The Good

ED2 · Repo Event/command shape 10.0 ED3 · Repo Event naming 10.0 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 7.2

The Bad

ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 4.8

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 75% · Strong ·

The Good

ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0 ES2 · Repo Immutable events 10.0

The Bad

ES3 · Repo PII in the event store 4.3

At a glance — Accessibility · 57% · Adequate ·

The Good

AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 10.0

The Bad

AC3 · Repo Page structure 4.8 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	127	High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection	22	High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	21	High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	11	High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the two leaked secrets and three stale dependency commits to eliminate critical exposure risks. Integrate automated security scanning into the CI pipeline to prevent regressions and address deprecated modules to maintain code hygiene. Finally, codify backup and disaster recovery procedures in infrastructure as code to ensure business continuity beyond simple persistence.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.	+12.1 pts	Low	REDACTED Scanning
Resolve the 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+6.3 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 2 Deprecated module finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+4.2 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+4.7 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.	+4.7 pts	Medium	DR & Backup
Resolve the 8 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED.	+1.6 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 6 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED, REDACTED.	+1.5 pts	Low	Secrets (history)
Resolve the 1 No network policy finding(s) in Network Egress Confinement.	+1.1 pts	Low	Network Egress Confinement

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 66 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 5% slop · 27% mixed · 68% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.4	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.8	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.5	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.5	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED

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 — 111

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 — 189

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 — 117

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

Could not be resolved — 15

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. 94 of 96 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 96 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D12D13D14D15D17D21D23D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D40D41D43D44AC3AC5AC7AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6DM1DM10DM11DM12DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8DM9ED1ED2ED3ED4ES1ES2ES3M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P6P7P8PF3R1R10R2R3R6R7R8R9X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X21X22X23X24X25X26X28X29X3X30X5

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, 377 of 417 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 01a1624c-8630-701c-8971-1282c7d08e0b.

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.

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a coverage step in CI (`go test ./... -v -race -cover`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.go), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its npm package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Go dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (5 contributor(s) across 1011 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 94% of the history; the other 4 hold 1.5% 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.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
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: it declares a published package (REDACTED), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D27 Navigability — 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. Tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites, and all 980 sampled here came from .go files. This repository's .tsx source is a material share of its production lines and contributed none, so the score above is a verdict about the part that was read. Not a finding that the unread half navigates well — it is unmeasured.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — 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. K8s/helm/charts/microservice/templates/deployment.yaml:2 did not read as a pod spec (a templated manifest such as Helm's that is not YAML until rendered, or a workload whose pod spec this check does not locate), so the seccomp/AppArmor profile in force there was not judged and no row about them can appear on this card.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and this repository's container is gocontainer, whose lifetimes are not modelled yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
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 two tells a construction that PRODUCES a measurement from one that merely passes it along, and this repository's frontend does not compute that fact. A measurement built independently in two places would not appear above.
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. Some of this repository's production types come from a frontend that does not bind comparison operands to the members they read, which arm one needs, and those types were not walked for this dimension. The counts above speak for the languages that declare it.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Go is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Go is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
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 reads C# syntax, and Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found, and this repository's Go is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 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").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
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.
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.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D40 Network Egress Confinement: Egress confinement is read from committed Kubernetes manifests — a policy applied out-of-band (cluster-default deny, a service mesh, or a cloud firewall/security group off-repo) is invisible, and a present NetworkPolicy is declared config, not proof the cluster admission-controller actually enforces it at runtime.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement: Syscall/MAC confinement is read from committed manifests — a profile applied by a cluster-wide PodSecurity default or a mutating webhook off-repo isn't seen, and a declared seccomp/AppArmor profile is config presence, not proof the node's kernel actually loaded and enforced it.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (REDACTED, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
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 (2): 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 Complexity9.4 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

4 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was domain.RegisterUserDomain at 20.

domain.RegisterUserDomain (cyclomatic 20)cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go:14

user.OnRegisterWithFacebook (cyclomatic 20)cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:239

user.OnRegisterWithGoogle (cyclomatic 20)cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:325

jwtAuthorizer.Auth (cyclomatic 16)pkg/auth/authorizer.go:32

What to do

Bring the 4 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with domain.RegisterUserDomain (cyclomatic 20), user.OnRegisterWithFacebook (cyclomatic 20), user.OnRegisterWithGoogle (cyclomatic 20). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 4 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.4 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

5 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was user.OnRegisterWithFacebook at 38.

user.OnRegisterWithFacebook (cognitive 38)cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:239

user.OnRegisterWithGoogle (cognitive 38)cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:325

domain.RegisterUserDomain (cognitive 19)cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go:14

ServiceContainer.Close (cognitive 17)cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:43

user.OnRegisterWithEmail (cognitive 16)cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:176

What to do

Bring the 5 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with user.OnRegisterWithFacebook (cognitive 38), user.OnRegisterWithGoogle (cognitive 38), domain.RegisterUserDomain (cognitive 19). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 5 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 8.6 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.6 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

FunctionTooLong: index.ClientCredentialscmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:173

What to do

Resolve the 1 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with index.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

72 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 9 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. Measured on part of this repository only: .tsx (18% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×5cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:32

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×4cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/client_repository.go:176

Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) · ×3cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:94

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×3cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go:82

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3pkg/eventbus/memory/event_bus.go:36

+ 52 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with mongo.go (2), token_repository.go, client.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with client_repository.go, REDACTED, commands.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with client.go (2), user.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

2 production modules (npm+Go), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 33 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.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

43 test methods: 43 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Go suite contributes 43 test case(s) across 18 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 0 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Go (github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~7.6~~ 7.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 95% · ceiling Verified

14 outdated, 2 author-deprecated direct Go module(s), 3 pinning or checksum defect(s). 22 of 22 direct requirement(s) were graded against proxy.golang.org (0 not served there, 1 publishing no tagged release to be behind). Whether any of these modules is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — proxy.golang.org publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this module graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED and go.sum there.

Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/asaskevich/govalidator · ×3

Deprecated module: github.com/golang/protobuf · ×2

Outdated: github.com/caarlos0/env/v6 · ×14

What to do

Resolve the 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Deprecated module finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_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

2 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 26 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 26 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 1 product package.json manifest(s). Its 7 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's npm package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 3 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 deducted task-comment markers across 12237 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×3cmd/user/internal/domain/user/email_address_test.go:21

What to do

Resolve the 3 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with email_address_test.go, metadata.go, firewall.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 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?

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?

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.

Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.

Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.

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

No domain types leak across context boundaries (2 contexts).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d23_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

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

91 % of calls cross a namespace and 21 % go through an interface, but 34 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated. Measured over the .go source only — this repository's .tsx was not sampled for call sites, so this score covers part of the tree, not all of it.

Scattered collaborators

What to do

Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)2.0 / 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 High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

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

8 finding(s): 0 critical, 8 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 6 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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)2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

22 finding(s): 0 critical, 16 high, 4 medium, 2 low. 8 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 6 file(s) — `.github/workflow-templates/publish.yaml`, `.github/workflow-templates/release-go.yaml`, `.github/workflow-templates/test-go.yaml`, `.github/workflow-templates/test-ts.yaml`, `REDACTED`, … (+1 more) — so no absence of findings in them is evidence of anything, and nothing in them was analysed. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 4 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 8 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 (8 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

113 finding(s): 15 critical, 58 high, 30 medium, 10 low.

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 57 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (51), REDACTED (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (57 issue-level).
Resolve the 14 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (12), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security7.1 / 10Adequategated by 5 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

21 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 11 medium, 5 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 5 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
Resolve the 11 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (6), REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

58 of 58 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go. Counted over 58 of the 217 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×58cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:1

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 58 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with index.tsx (4), commands.go (3), REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (58 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: REDACTED↔user.go 76%; token_store.go↔server.go 70%; REDACTED↔user.go 62%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: REDACTED ↔ event_bus.goREDACTED:1

Change coupling: REDACTED ↔ user.go · ×3REDACTED:1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with REDACTED (2), token_store.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 8 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D40 · Network Egress Confinement6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Kubernetes workloads restrict network EGRESS with a NetworkPolicy (or Cilium policy), limiting where a compromised pod can send data or reach a command-and-control server. Presence of committed egress-restricting policy, not runtime enforcement.

Method: Deterministic YAML-manifest inspection (no external tool, no Roslyn — language-agnostic): Kubernetes workloads gate applicability; credits a NetworkPolicy / Cilium policy that restricts egress (policyTypes: [Egress] / egress rules). Reward-leaning (neutral floor climbing to 10, never a deduction — baseline misconfigs stay with D31). Deterministic.

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

0/2 network-egress controls present (network policy, egress restriction).

No network policy

What to do

Resolve the 1 No network policy finding(s) in Network Egress Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d40_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Kubernetes workloads confine the kernel boundary — a seccomp profile (RuntimeDefault/Localhost) plus an AppArmor/SELinux mandatory-access-control layer — shrinking the syscall attack surface a container escape would use. Presence of committed confinement config, not runtime enforcement.

Method: Deterministic YAML-manifest inspection (no external tool, no Roslyn): on Kubernetes workloads, credits a seccomp profile (RuntimeDefault/Localhost) and an AppArmor/SELinux MAC layer. Reward-leaning (neutral floor climbing to 10); NotApplicable without workloads. Deterministic.

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

No workload manifest could be read as a pod spec, so no confinement was judged.

What to do

Improve Kernel & Syscall Confinement — currently 6.0/10. — No workload manifest could be read as a pod spec, so no confinement was judged.

Detailed fixes: d41_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC3 · Page structure4.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="root">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it. — cmd/web/public/index.html:2

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 31 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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?

DM10 · One transaction, one aggregate10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a single operation mutates more than one aggregate root. An aggregate is a consistency boundary, so saving two together fuses them into one — the second's invariants come to depend on the first's transaction, and the pair can no longer be separated. Reads of other aggregates are not counted.

Method: Neutral body surface (DDD-gated): every method body scanned for repository WRITE calls (Add/Update/Save/Remove/Delete/Insert/Store and their async forms), keyed on the ARGUMENT type rather than the repository type — three `IRepository<T>` writes collapse to one repository but are three distinct aggregates. Reads (Get/Find/Load/Query) are excluded, so loading another aggregate for context never counts. Score is offending methods over methods that write at all. Deterministic.

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 boundary5.5 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

The domain package `github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/domain/token` imports `gopkg.in/oauth2` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port. (×3) — cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/commands.go:10, cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/events.go:8, cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:12
The domain package `github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/domain/user` imports `pkg:infrastructure` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port. — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:11

What to do

Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM7 · Repository granularity5.3 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

`ClientRepository` leaks the infrastructure/framework type `ClientInfo` through its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants. — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/client.go:30

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?

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling4.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

`WhenUserAccessTokenWasRequested` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one. — cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_access_token_was_requested.go:23
`OnChangeEmailAddress` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one. — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:94
`OnRegisterWithEmail` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one. — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:176
`OnRegisterWithFacebook` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one. — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:239
`OnRegisterWithGoogle` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one. — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:325

What to do

Remove synchronous remote calls from message handlers — react by publishing further messages, so services stay temporally decoupled.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED2 · Event/command shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether commands have a single handler (one owner of the decision) and fan-out is modelled with events.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): command-shaped messages identified by convention; handler count per command checked for the exactly-one rule. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED3 · Event naming10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge — low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write7.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

`clientRepository.Save` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern — write the message to an outbox table in the SAME transaction as the state change, and dispatch it from there afterwards — or your platform's equivalent (a broker transaction, or an outbox library from your own ecosystem). — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository/client_repository.go:23
`tokenRepository.Save` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern — write the message to an outbox table in the SAME transaction as the state change, and dispatch it from there afterwards — or your platform's equivalent (a broker transaction, or an outbox library from your own ecosystem). — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository/token_repository.go:23
`userRepository.Save` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern — write the message to an outbox table in the SAME transaction as the state change, and dispatch it from there afterwards — or your platform's equivalent (a broker transaction, or an outbox library from your own ecosystem). — cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/repository/user_repository.go:28

What to do

Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether Apply/When folds reconstruct state purely from the event (no DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random or IO) so replay is reproducible.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES2 · Immutable events10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether persisted events are immutable facts (init-only/readonly) — a settable event member lets stored history be rewritten.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-sourcing gated): persisted events checked for public setters; immutability verified per property/field. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES3 · PII in the event store4.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the append-only event log avoids un-erasable personal data (or has a crypto-shredding strategy) — a GDPR right-to-erasure risk.

Method: Roslyn (event-sourcing gated): high-confidence PII flagged Warning; ambiguous name-like fields adjudicated by language model as person versus fictional. Advisory without model, definitive with.

Persisted event carries personal data (Email) — no crypto-shredding strategy covers it, so it collides with the GDPR right-to-erasure. (×2) — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/events.go:22, cmd/user/internal/domain/user/events.go:34

What to do

Adopt crypto-shredding (store PII encrypted with a per-subject key you can throw away) or keep PII out of events and reference it by id so erasure stays possible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture 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 your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

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 accuracy8.0 / 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.

README.md links to `cmd/user/main.yaml`, but `cmd/user/main.yaml` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:125

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README.md links to `cmd/user/main.yaml`, but `cmd/user/main.yaml` does not exist.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

`cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 52 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline. — cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:52
`cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 80 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline. — cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:80
`cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 93 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline. — cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:93
`cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 105 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline. — cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:105
`cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 133 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline. — cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:133
`cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 146 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline. — cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:146

What to do

Route service-code `console.*` output through the module's structured logger (with named fields), so delivery outcomes and failures reach the log pipeline with a level.
Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (go.opentelemetry.io/otel) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 6304 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

What to do

Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) 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?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

`http.Get(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. — REDACTED:92

What to do

Give every `http.Client` an explicit `Timeout` (never call `http.Get`/`http.Post` or `http.DefaultClient`, which have none), or build each request with `http.NewRequestWithContext` under a `context.WithTimeout`; add retry with back-off (`hashicorp/go-retryablehttp`) and a breaker (`sony/gobreaker`) around dependencies that fail.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether database schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than being auto-created from the model at startup.

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R10 · Code Duplication8.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

cmd/web/src/components/common/LoginForm.tsx:53 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientForm.tsx:46 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 382 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — cmd/web/src/components/common/LoginForm.tsx:53
cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/AuthTokenList/index.tsx:10 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/index.tsx:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/AuthTokenList/index.tsx:10
cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/AuthToken/index.tsx:35 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:195 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 152 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/AuthToken/index.tsx:35
cmd/web/src/components/common/LoginDrawerButton.tsx:29 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientDrawerButton.tsx:42 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — cmd/web/src/components/common/LoginDrawerButton.tsx:29
cmd/web/src/containers/App/components/Footer/index.tsx:13 · cmd/web/src/containers/App/components/Header/index.tsx:105 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — cmd/web/src/containers/App/components/Footer/index.tsx:13
cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:328 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:342 — 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. — cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:328
cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientForm.tsx:114 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientForm.tsx:124 — 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. — cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientForm.tsx:114

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Unreachable from the 2 application, 2 tooling and 1 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
no import path from any entry point (2 application, 2 tooling, 1 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make (×3) — cmd/web/src/hooks/useDocumentClick.tsx, cmd/web/src/containers/index.tsx, cmd/web/src/context/index.ts
Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×2) — cmd/web/src/components/common/ColorModeSwitcher.tsx:21, cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:28
Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in cmd/web/src/components/common/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in cmd/web/src/components/common/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. — cmd/web/src/components/common/withForwardRef.tsx:3

What to do

Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R8 · Dependency Hygiene3.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. (×2) — cmd/web/src/components/common/PaginatedTable/index.tsx:5, cmd/web/src/containers/App/index.tsx:9
Declared in cmd/web/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R9 · Circular Imports7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

cmd/web/src/hooks/index.ts → cmd/web/src/hooks/useApi.tsx → cmd/web/src/hooks/index.ts (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 6 files) — cmd/web/src/hooks/index.ts:1

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether functions that make a cancellable request accept or pass on a context.Context (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Only 1/2 functions that make a cancellable request (net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it (`http.NewRequestWithContext`, `DialContext`); where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
`getProfile` calls `http.Get(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`. — REDACTED:91

What to do

Thread a context.Context through functions that make requests, so the work stops when its caller gives up.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff2.9 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

`Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 57, and again on line 65 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`. — cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:57
`Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 65, and again on line 73 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`. — cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:65
`Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 55, and again on line 63 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`. — cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:55
`Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 63, and again on line 71 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`. — cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:63
`Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 71, and again on line 79 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`. — cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:71

What to do

In Go, hand values from a goroutine to the body waiting on it over a channel the body receives from, rather than through a map or slice beside a `sync.WaitGroup` or a signal channel — or hold one `sync.Mutex` over every access to the shared map or slice on both sides. The wait orders the signal; it takes no exclusion over the map's or slice's own state.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether strict null checking is enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` assertion — TypeScript's `strictNullChecks` (which `strict` turns on) is what makes `string` exclude `null` and `undefined`, and the postfix `!` is the operator that silences it.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 6 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (11%; ≈12% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 49 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness	4.1.2	Partial signal
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 49 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.1.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	87%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	78%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	56%	Adequate — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	29%	Weak — gated by D13, R8, P3, P5, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	48%	Adequate — gated by D28, D29, D30, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	77%	Exemplary	Solid.
Event-Driven	68%	Strong	Solid.
Event Sourcing	75%	Strong	Solid.
Accessibility	57%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Unscored — 2 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.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

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 — 46 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 image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
AC2 Forms & labels — No form control/button found in the parsed markup — AC2 not applicable here.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No styled element found in the parsed markup — AC6 not applicable here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~1131 lines of test source are present (.go) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
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.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
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.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
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
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a `func BenchmarkXxx(b *testing.B)` in any `_test.go` file, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Go code has 11,806 production line(s), 3 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
R4 Test Coverage — 1 test file(s) reach none of 45 production file(s) via imports — exercised outside the JS import graph (integration/bundled), not import-reachable
R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a yarn lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
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.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — 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
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 111 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×57

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 32 more in this group — see findings.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×14

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×6

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write · Dual write (no outbox) · ×3

Dual write (no outbox): clientRepository.Save cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository/client_repository.go:23 — `clientRepository.Save` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern — write the message to an outbox table in the SAME transaction as the state change, and dispatch it from there afterwards — or your platform's equivalent (a broker transaction, or an outbox library from your own ecosystem).
Dual write (no outbox): tokenRepository.Save cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository/token_repository.go:23 — `tokenRepository.Save` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern — write the message to an outbox table in the SAME transaction as the state change, and dispatch it from there afterwards — or your platform's equivalent (a broker transaction, or an outbox library from your own ecosystem).
Dual write (no outbox): userRepository.Save cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/repository/user_repository.go:28 — `userRepository.Save` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern — write the message to an outbox table in the SAME transaction as the state change, and dispatch it from there afterwards — or your platform's equivalent (a broker transaction, or an outbox library from your own ecosystem).

D13 · REDACTED Scanning · Leaked secret · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

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

Boundary-crossing change coupling: REDACTED ↔ event_bus.go REDACTED:1 — `REDACTED` (context cmd) and `pkg/eventbus/event_bus.go` (context pkg) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 53% of the time (8 of the 15 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 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `13004fd0` Refactor event bus package; `811f0725` Set event handler timeout, add metadata to event handlers with reques…; `66759209` Add push/pull service, for event push to allow event distribution to … — run `git show` on any of them.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unlisted import 'classnames' · ×1

Unlisted import 'classnames' cmd/web/src/components/common/PaginatedTable/index.tsx:5 — Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unlisted import 'react-router' · ×1

Unlisted import 'react-router' cmd/web/src/containers/App/index.tsx:9 — Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident.

R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (2 files) · ×1

Import cycle (2 files) cmd/web/src/hooks/index.ts:1 — cmd/web/src/hooks/index.ts → cmd/web/src/hooks/useApi.tsx → cmd/web/src/hooks/index.ts (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 6 files)

Serious — 189 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×30

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

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×11

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×8

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:32 — cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:32-46 | cmd/user/internal/application/services/mongo.go:31-45 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:32` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go`, `cmd/user/internal/application/services/mongo.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:107 — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:107-121 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/token_repository.go:78-92 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:21 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:21-35 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:22-36 — before extracting anything, compare `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go` and `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:21` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) cmd/user/internal/application/services/mongo.go:56 — cmd/user/internal/application/services/mongo.go:56-70 | cmd/user/internal/application/services/mysql.go:61-75 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/user/internal/application/services/mongo.go:56` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. 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.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) REDACTED:265 — REDACTED:265-279 | REDACTED:263-277 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling · Temporal coupling in handler · ×5

Temporal coupling in handler: WhenUserAccessTokenWasRequested cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_access_token_was_requested.go:23 — `WhenUserAccessTokenWasRequested` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one.
Temporal coupling in handler: OnChangeEmailAddress cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:94 — `OnChangeEmailAddress` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one.
Temporal coupling in handler: OnRegisterWithEmail cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:176 — `OnRegisterWithEmail` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one.
Temporal coupling in handler: OnRegisterWithFacebook cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:239 — `OnRegisterWithFacebook` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one.
Temporal coupling in handler: OnRegisterWithGoogle cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:325 — `OnRegisterWithGoogle` reads an eventually-consistent read model (a repository query on the infrastructure/persistence layer) while handling a message. Its correctness depends, in real time, on a SIBLING event handler having already updated that projection — but the in-memory bus publishes before the read model settles, so a concurrent flow can read stale state. React by publishing a follow-up message (or read through the write-side aggregate), rather than querying another handler's asynchronously-maintained projection inside this one.

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff · Collection crosses a callback boundary unsynchronised · ×5

Collection crosses a callback boundary unsynchronised cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:57 — `Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 57, and again on line 65 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`.
Collection crosses a callback boundary unsynchronised cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:65 — `Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 65, and again on line 73 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`.
Collection crosses a callback boundary unsynchronised cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:55 — `Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 55, and again on line 63 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`.
Collection crosses a callback boundary unsynchronised cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:63 — `Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 63, and again on line 71 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`.
Collection crosses a callback boundary unsynchronised cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:71 — `Close` starts two goroutines that both write `errs`, a slice — `errs = append(errs, …)` on line 71, and again on line 79 — and waits on `wg` only after both have started, so the two run at the same time with nothing ordering one write against the other. `errs = append(errs, …)` rewrites the slice variable itself — its pointer, length and capacity — so the other side reads or rewrites a variable mid-update: an append is lost, or a read sees a length its backing array does not have. `wg` is a `sync.WaitGroup`, which orders the handoff's signal and takes no exclusion over the slice's own state. Guard every write to `errs` with one `sync.Mutex`, or have each goroutine send its result on a channel that this body alone receives from and writes into `errs`.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/client_repository.go:176 — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/client_repository.go:176-191 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:240-255 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/client_repository.go:176` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/client_repository.go`, `cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) REDACTED:104 — REDACTED:104-119 | REDACTED:99-114 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 58 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:104` 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 (16 lines × 2) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:254 — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:254-269 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:340-355 — 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 `cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:254` it begins part-way through the construct above it, 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 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.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:127 — pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:127-142 | pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go:129-144 — `pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go` and `pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit · ×3

Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/asaskevich/govalidator — Direct dependency `github.com/asaskevich/govalidator` is required at `v0.0.0-20200108200545-475eaeb16496` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2020-01-08, 6.8 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `github.com/asaskevich/govalidator` and has not moved this requirement in 6.8 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `github.com/asaskevich/govalidator` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: golang.org/x/oauth2 — Direct dependency `golang.org/x/oauth2` is required at `v0.0.0-20200107190931-bf48bf16ab8d` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2020-01-07, 6.8 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `golang.org/x/oauth2` and has not moved this requirement in 6.8 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `golang.org/x/oauth2` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: golang.org/x/time — Direct dependency `golang.org/x/time` is required at `v0.0.0-20200416051211-89c76fbcd5d1` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2020-04-16, 6.5 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `golang.org/x/time` and has not moved this requirement in 6.5 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `golang.org/x/time` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×3

TodoComment cmd/user/internal/domain/user/email_address_test.go:21 — // TODO: Add test cases. — 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 pkg/grpc/middleware/metadata.go:77 — // TODO: update server stream context — 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 pkg/grpc/middleware/firewall/firewall.go:75 — // TODO: update server stream context — 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.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×3

Change coupling: REDACTED ↔ user.go REDACTED:1 — `REDACTED` and `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go` change together 76% of the time (13 of the 17 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 13 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `ebbbd46c` Add handler wrapper to better handle errors; `6f5389d0` Write header before status; `cd9f8676` Fix event handler context timeout (do not use http request context) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: token_store.go ↔ server.go cmd/auth/internal/application/services/oauth2/token_store.go:1 — `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/oauth2/token_store.go` and `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/grpc/server.go` change together 70% of the time (7 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) 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 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `cd9f8676` Fix event handler context timeout (do not use http request context) (at that commit the file was still `cmd/auth/internal/application/oauth2/token_store.go`); `841dc077` Update bus interface to return error on publish (at that commit the file was still `cmd/auth/internal/application/oauth2/token_store.go`); `3a5d8cc1` Extract channel before using (at that commit the file was still `cmd/auth/internal/application/oauth2/token_store.go`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: REDACTED ↔ user.go cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/auth.go:1 — `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/auth.go` and `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go` change together 62% of the time (10 of the 16 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 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `ebbbd46c` Add handler wrapper to better handle errors; `03a4079a` Improve error handling, log stacktrace on http error; `f4bd7dc5` Use response writer to capture status code — run `git show` on any of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) · ×3

Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:94 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:94-108 | cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:116-130 | cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:122-136 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:94` 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 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.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:133 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:133-147 | cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:139-153 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:259-273 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go`, `cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go`, `cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:93 — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:93-107 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:119-133 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:170-184 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:93` 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 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 (14 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go:82 — cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go:82-95 | cmd/user/internal/application/config/env.go:97-110 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go:82` it begins part-way through the construct above it, 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go`, `cmd/user/internal/application/config/env.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/router.go:75 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/router.go:75-88 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/router.go:90-103 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/router.go:75` 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/router.go`, `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/router.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:296 — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:296-309 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:382-395 — 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 `cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:296` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) pkg/eventbus/memory/event_bus.go:36 — pkg/eventbus/memory/event_bus.go:36-47 | pkg/eventbus/memory/event_bus.go:64-75 — 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:84 — pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:84-95 | pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go:86-97 — `pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go` and `pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. 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.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/commands.go:85 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/commands.go:85-96 | cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/commands.go:130-141 — 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 `cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/commands.go:85` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:116 — pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:116-124 | pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go:118-126 — `pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go` and `pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:152 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:152-160 | cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:158-166 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) pkg/http/middleware/authenticator/token.go:72 — pkg/http/middleware/authenticator/token.go:72-80 | pkg/http/middleware/authenticator/token.go:93-101 — 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 `pkg/http/middleware/authenticator/token.go:72` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go:18 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go:18-24 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go:18-24 — before extracting anything, compare `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go` and `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go` as WHOLE FILES: 100% 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. 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go`, `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:20 — pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:20-26 | pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go:20-26 — `pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go` and `pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/token_repository.go:41 — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/token_repository.go:41-47 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:38-44 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/token_repository.go`, `cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated module · ×2

Deprecated module: github.com/golang/protobuf — `github.com/golang/protobuf` is required at v1.5.2 in REDACTED, and its author has DEPRECATED the module: "Use the "google.golang.org/protobuf" module instead." A deprecation is declared by the author in the module's own REDACTED and applies to the whole module, not to one release, so moving to a newer version of it does not clear this. Follow the replacement the notice names.
Deprecated module: go.mongodb.org/mongo-driver — `go.mongodb.org/mongo-driver` is required at v1.5.1 in REDACTED, and its author has DEPRECATED the module: "Use go.mongodb.org/mongo-driver/v2 instead." A deprecation is declared by the author in the module's own REDACTED and applies to the whole module, not to one release, so moving to a newer version of it does not clear this. Follow the replacement the notice names.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:86 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:86-114 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:87-107 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:110-133 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:161-184 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:75 — cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:75-89 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:91-105 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:107-121 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:123-137 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:46 — cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:46-70 | cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:44-68 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:46` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go`, `cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go:28 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go:28-52 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go:28-52 — before extracting anything, compare `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go` and `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go` as WHOLE FILES: 100% 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. 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go`, `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/health.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/commands.go:61 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/commands.go:61-80 | cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/commands.go:110-129 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/commands.go:61` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/commands.go:130` calls `Wrap`, `Errorf`, `Save` and `cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/commands.go:81` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) REDACTED:52 — REDACTED:52-71 | REDACTED:50-69 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) · ×2

Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:104 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:104-118 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:94-108 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:147-161 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go:117-131 — before extracting anything, compare `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go` and `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:104` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go`, `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go`, `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:144 — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:144-158 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:195-209 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:218-232 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:242-256 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:144` 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 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 (13 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) REDACTED:35 — REDACTED:35-47 | REDACTED:34-46 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 58 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go:63 — cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go:63-75 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go:86-98 — 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 `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go:63` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:41 — cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:41-51 | cmd/user/internal/application/services/mongo.go:49-59 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:41` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go`, `cmd/user/internal/application/services/mongo.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:36 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:36-46 | cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:38-48 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:36` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_model.go:42 — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_model.go:42-49 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/client_model.go:45-52 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_repository.go:42 — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_repository.go:42-49 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/client_repository.go:53-61 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

ES3 · PII in the event store · PII in event · ×2

PII in event: AccessTokenWasRequested cmd/user/internal/domain/user/events.go:22 — Persisted event carries personal data (Email) — no crypto-shredding strategy covers it, so it collides with the GDPR right-to-erasure.
PII in event: EmailAddressWasChanged cmd/user/internal/domain/user/events.go:34 — Persisted event carries personal data (Email) — no crypto-shredding strategy covers it, so it collides with the GDPR right-to-erasure.

R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~3 LoC) · ×2

Dead file (~3 LoC) cmd/web/src/containers/index.tsx — no import path from any entry point (2 application, 2 tooling, 1 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
Dead file (~3 LoC) cmd/web/src/context/index.ts — no import path from any entry point (2 application, 2 tooling, 1 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make

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

Page without a main landmark cmd/web/public/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="root">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it.

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

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 31 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · domain.RegisterUserDomain (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

domain.RegisterUserDomain (cyclomatic 20) cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go:14 — domain.RegisterUserDomain has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · user.OnRegisterWithFacebook (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

user.OnRegisterWithFacebook (cyclomatic 20) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:239 — user.OnRegisterWithFacebook has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 20 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 240). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (user.OnRegisterWithGoogle) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go holds 2 of the 4 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 10 of the 16 points over it (63%), 2× the next-largest file (cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go at 5). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · user.OnRegisterWithGoogle (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

user.OnRegisterWithGoogle (cyclomatic 20) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:325 — user.OnRegisterWithGoogle has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 20 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 326). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (user.OnRegisterWithFacebook) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go holds 2 of the 4 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 10 of the 16 points over it (63%), 2× the next-largest file (cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go at 5). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · jwtAuthorizer.Auth (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

jwtAuthorizer.Auth (cyclomatic 16) pkg/auth/authorizer.go:32 — jwtAuthorizer.Auth has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · user.OnRegisterWithFacebook (cognitive 38) · ×1

user.OnRegisterWithFacebook (cognitive 38) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:239 — user.OnRegisterWithFacebook has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (35 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 17). None of this is in the body itself: all 38 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 240). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (user.OnRegisterWithGoogle) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go holds 3 of the 5 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 47 of the 53 points over it (89%), 11.8× the next-largest file (cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go at 4). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · user.OnRegisterWithGoogle (cognitive 38) · ×1

user.OnRegisterWithGoogle (cognitive 38) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:325 — user.OnRegisterWithGoogle has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (35 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 17). None of this is in the body itself: all 38 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 326). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (user.OnRegisterWithFacebook) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go holds 3 of the 5 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 47 of the 53 points over it (89%), 11.8× the next-largest file (cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go at 4). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · domain.RegisterUserDomain (cognitive 19) · ×1

domain.RegisterUserDomain (cognitive 19) cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go:14 — domain.RegisterUserDomain has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ServiceContainer.Close (cognitive 17) · ×1

ServiceContainer.Close (cognitive 17) cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:43 — ServiceContainer.Close has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 5 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 51, 59, 67, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · user.OnRegisterWithEmail (cognitive 16) · ×1

user.OnRegisterWithEmail (cognitive 16) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:176 — user.OnRegisterWithEmail has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). None of this is in the body itself: all 16 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 177). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go holds 3 of the 5 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 47 of the 53 points over it (89%), 11.8× the next-largest file (cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go at 4). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×1

FunctionTooLong: index.ClientCredentials cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:173 — FunctionTooLong — ClientCredentials runs 150 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 50 over it, 1.50× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 30 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 30 shared lines) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:83 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:83-133 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:58-123 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:126-176 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go:101-146 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 30 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (55 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (55 shared lines) REDACTED:34 — REDACTED:34-119 | REDACTED:33-114 — These two members are variants of one another: 55 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (44 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (44 shared lines) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:239 — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:239-309 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:325-395 — These two members are variants of one another: 44 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_repository.go:51 — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_repository.go:51-65 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:42-56 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:58-72 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:74-88 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:90-104 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:59-73 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:75-89 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:91-105 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:107-121 — These 9 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 9 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 9 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:84 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:84-108 | cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:111-130 | cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:117-136 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:136-158 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:187-209 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:212-232 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:235-256 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) REDACTED:114 — REDACTED:114-156 | REDACTED:162-211 | REDACTED:213-262 | REDACTED:112-154 | REDACTED:160-209 | REDACTED:211-260 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_connected_with_facebook.go:17 — cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_connected_with_facebook.go:17-41 | cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_connected_with_google.go:17-41 | cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_was_registered_with_email.go:17-41 | cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_was_registered_with_facebook.go:17-41 | cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_was_registered_with_google.go:17-41 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (39 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (39 lines × 2) REDACTED:74 — REDACTED:74-112 | REDACTED:72-110 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:65 — cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:65-94 | cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go:71-100 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go:65` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/services.go`, `cmd/user/internal/application/services/services.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) REDACTED:164 — REDACTED:164-192 | REDACTED:162-190 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:164` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 3) pkg/eventstore/mongo/event_store.go:117 — pkg/eventstore/mongo/event_store.go:117-143 | pkg/eventstore/mongo/event_store.go:150-176 | pkg/eventstore/mongo/event_store.go:184-210 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/eventstore/mongo/event_store.go:117` 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 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) REDACTED:216 — REDACTED:216-242 | REDACTED:214-240 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:216` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:55 — pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:55-80 | pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go:56-81 — `pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go` and `pkg/eventbus/pushpull/event_bus.go` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/eventbus/pubsub/event_bus.go:55` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24–25 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (24–25 lines × 2) REDACTED:132 — REDACTED:132-156 | REDACTED:131-154 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:132` 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 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 (23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mysql.go:29 — cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mysql.go:29-51 | cmd/user/internal/application/services/mysql.go:28-50 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mysql.go`, `cmd/user/internal/application/services/mysql.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/router.go:34 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/router.go:34-55 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/router.go:39-60 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/router.go`, `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/router.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) REDACTED:182 — REDACTED:182-201 | REDACTED:232-251 | REDACTED:180-199 | REDACTED:230-249 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:182` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 2) REDACTED:53 — REDACTED:53-70 | REDACTED:49-68 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 58 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:53` it begins part-way through the construct above it, 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `REDACTED:72` calls `InitServer`, `NewServer` and `REDACTED:70` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 3) cmd/user/internal/application/services/memory.go:26 — cmd/user/internal/application/services/memory.go:26-43 | cmd/user/internal/application/services/mongo.go:37-54 | cmd/user/internal/application/services/mysql.go:41-59 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/user/internal/application/services/mysql.go:41` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:48 — cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:48-66 | cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mysql.go:53-71 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go:94 — cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go:94-111 | cmd/user/internal/application/config/env.go:112-129 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go:94` 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go`, `cmd/user/internal/application/config/env.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 5) cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_connected_with_facebook.go:25 — cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_connected_with_facebook.go:25-41 | cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_connected_with_google.go:25-41 | cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_was_registered_with_email.go:25-41 | cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_was_registered_with_facebook.go:25-41 | cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_was_registered_with_google.go:25-41 — before extracting anything, compare `cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_connected_with_facebook.go` and `cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_connected_with_google.go` as WHOLE FILES: 85% 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. 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 `cmd/user/internal/application/eventhandler/when_user_connected_with_facebook.go:25` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:38 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:38-54 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:39-55 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go:39-55 — before extracting anything, compare `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go` and `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:38` 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go`, `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go`, `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) REDACTED:115 — REDACTED:115-131 | REDACTED:113-129 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:115` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) REDACTED:165 — REDACTED:165-180 | REDACTED:216-231 | REDACTED:163-178 | REDACTED:214-229 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:165` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:168 — cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:168-183 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:192-207 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:216-231 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:168` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:190 — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:190-203 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:254-267 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:340-353 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:190` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:121 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:121-133 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:111-123 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:164-176 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go:134-146 — before extracting anything, compare `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go` and `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:121` 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go`, `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go`, `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:145 — cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:145-157 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:166-178 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:187-199 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:145` it begins part-way through the construct above it, 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 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 (12 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:78 — cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:78-89 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:94-105 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:110-121 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:126-137 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:78` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository/client_repository.go:24 — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository/client_repository.go:24-35 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository/token_repository.go:24-35 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/repository/user_repository.go:29-40 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository/client_repository.go`, `cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/repository/token_repository.go`, `cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/repository/user_repository.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 6) REDACTED:143 — REDACTED:143-152 | REDACTED:191-200 | REDACTED:241-250 | REDACTED:141-150 | REDACTED:189-198 | REDACTED:239-248 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/grpc/server.go:37 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/grpc/server.go:37-46 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/grpc/server.go:51-60 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/grpc/server.go:37-46 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/grpc/server.go:37` 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 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/grpc/server.go`, `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/grpc/server.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:254 — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:254-262 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:275-283 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:340-348 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:361-369 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. 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 (8–9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) REDACTED:91 — REDACTED:91-98 | REDACTED:85-93 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 58 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:91` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 9) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 9) cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_repository.go:58 — cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_repository.go:58-65 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:49-56 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:65-72 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:81-88 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:97-104 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:66-73 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:82-89 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:98-105 | cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:114-121 — there are 9 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 9 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_repository.go:58` 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 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/client_repository.go`, `cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go`, `cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:94 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go:94-101 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:144-151 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:195-202 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:218-225 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:242-249 — there are 5 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 5 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/domain/client/client.go`, `cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:100 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:100-107 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:93-100 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:119-126 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:170-177 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. 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. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go`, `cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) cmd/auth/internal/application/services/memory.go:42 — cmd/auth/internal/application/services/memory.go:42-49 | cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mongo.go:62-69 | cmd/auth/internal/application/services/mysql.go:67-74 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/auth/internal/application/services/memory.go:42` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (2–8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (2–8 lines × 4) cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:84 — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:84-91 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:80-81 | cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:127-134 | cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go:103-104 — before extracting anything, compare `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go` and `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:84` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go`, `cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go`, `cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/events.go:44 — cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/events.go:44-50 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_model.go:36-42 | cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/token_model.go:41-47 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED:281 — REDACTED:281-290 | REDACTED:279-288 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 228 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:248 — cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:248-252 | cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:334-338 — 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 `cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:248` it begins part-way through the construct above it, 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 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.

DM7 · Repository granularity · Leaky repository contract · ×1

Leaky repository contract: ClientRepository cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/client.go:30 — `ClientRepository` leaks the infrastructure/framework type `ClientInfo` through its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants.

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.

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×1

Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED:92 — `http.Get(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (78 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (78 matched lines × 2 locations) cmd/web/src/components/common/LoginForm.tsx:53 — cmd/web/src/components/common/LoginForm.tsx:53 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientForm.tsx:46 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 382 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (44 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (44 lines × 2 locations) cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/AuthTokenList/index.tsx:10 — cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/AuthTokenList/index.tsx:10 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/index.tsx:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (34 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (34 matched lines × 2 locations) cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/AuthToken/index.tsx:35 — cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/AuthToken/index.tsx:35 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:195 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 152 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) cmd/web/src/components/common/LoginDrawerButton.tsx:29 — cmd/web/src/components/common/LoginDrawerButton.tsx:29 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientDrawerButton.tsx:42 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) cmd/web/src/containers/App/components/Footer/index.tsx:13 — cmd/web/src/containers/App/components/Footer/index.tsx:13 · cmd/web/src/containers/App/components/Header/index.tsx:105 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:328 — cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:328 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:342 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientForm.tsx:114 — cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientForm.tsx:114 · cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientForm.tsx:124 — 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.

R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~15 LoC) · ×1

Dead file (~15 LoC) cmd/web/src/hooks/useDocumentClick.tsx — no import path from any entry point (2 application, 2 tooling, 1 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@chakra-ui/theme' · ×1

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

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@chakra-ui/theme-tools' · ×1

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

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@testing-library/react' · ×1

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

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Function without context.Context · ×1

Function without context.Context: getProfile REDACTED:91 — `getProfile` calls `http.Get(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`.

Minor — 103 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×58

Orphaned file cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientCredentials/index.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/user_repository.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/user/internal/domain/user/user.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/token_repository.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/user/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/user_repository.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/grpc/middleware/firewall/firewall.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/user/internal/domain/user/events.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/eventstore/mongo/event_store.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mysql/client_repository.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/user/internal/application/config/env.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/grpc/middleware/errors.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/auth/internal/infrastructure/persistence/mongo/token_repository.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/web/src/containers/App/components/Header/index.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/web/src/components/common/LoginForm.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/user/internal/domain/init.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/auth/internal/application/services/oauth2/token_store.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/web/src/containers/Security/components/ClientList/CreateClientForm.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/auth/internal/application/config/env.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/router.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/grpc/middleware/logger.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
+ 33 more in this group — see findings.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×10

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

P2 · Observability · Console output used as the logging channel · ×6

Console output used as the logging channel cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:52 — `cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 52 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline.
Console output used as the logging channel cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:80 — `cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 80 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline.
Console output used as the logging channel cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:93 — `cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 93 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline.
Console output used as the logging channel cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:105 — `cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 105 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline.
Console output used as the logging channel cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:133 — `cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 133 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline.
Console output used as the logging channel cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:146 — `cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts` reports through `console.*` at line 146 although other files in its module log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, fields or correlation and never reach the log pipeline.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary · Domain depends on infrastructure · ×4

Domain depends on infrastructure: token cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/commands.go:10 — The domain package `github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/domain/token` imports `gopkg.in/oauth2` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: token cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/events.go:8 — The domain package `github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/domain/token` imports `gopkg.in/oauth2` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: token cmd/auth/internal/domain/token/token.go:12 — The domain package `github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/auth/internal/domain/token` imports `gopkg.in/oauth2` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.
Domain depends on infrastructure: user cmd/user/internal/domain/user/commands.go:11 — The domain package `github.com/vardius/go-api-boilerplate/cmd/user/internal/domain/user` imports `pkg:infrastructure` — an infrastructure concern (persistence/HTTP/broker/auth). The dependency direction points from the domain layer to infrastructure; invert it behind a domain-owned port.

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 2 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (9771 LoC, 155 module-visible types across 69 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

D27 · Navigability · Scattered collaborators · ×1

Scattered collaborators — 91 % of calls cross a namespace and only 34 % of collaborators are co-located — group each feature's code into a vertical slice so a call's collaborators sit together.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 58 of 58 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 58 separate risks. Counted over 58 of the 217 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D40 · Network Egress Confinement · No network policy · ×1

No network policy — No Kubernetes NetworkPolicy (or Cilium policy) found. Without one, every pod can talk to every other pod and reach out to the internet by default. Add a default-deny policy and open only the flows you need.

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.

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

README/code drift README.md:125 — README.md links to `cmd/user/main.yaml`, but `cmd/user/main.yaml` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

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

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 6304 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

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

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

Unused export 'MODE' cmd/web/src/components/common/ColorModeSwitcher.tsx:21 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

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

Unused export 'default' cmd/web/src/components/common/withForwardRef.tsx:3 — Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in cmd/web/src/components/common/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in cmd/web/src/components/common/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists.

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

Unused export 'register' cmd/web/src/serviceWorker.ts:28 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×1

Duplicated predicate cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go:113 — `totalUsers < 1 || offset > (totalUsers-1)` appears character-identically in 4 files — cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/client.go, cmd/auth/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/token.go, cmd/user/internal/interfaces/grpc/server.go, cmd/user/internal/interfaces/http/handlers/user.go. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all functions that make a request accept a context.Context · ×1

Not all functions that make a request accept a context.Context — Only 1/2 functions that make a cancellable request (net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it (`http.NewRequestWithContext`, `DialContext`); where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.

Minor — 14 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×14

Outdated: github.com/caarlos0/env/v6 — `github.com/caarlos0/env/v6` is required at v6.2.1 in REDACTED, but v6.10.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/caarlos0/env/v6@v6.10.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql — `github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql` is required at v1.5.0 in REDACTED, but v1.10.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql@v1.10.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/google/uuid — `github.com/google/uuid` is required at v1.1.1 in REDACTED, but v1.6.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/google/uuid@v1.6.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/grpc-ecosystem/go-grpc-middleware — `github.com/grpc-ecosystem/go-grpc-middleware` is required at v1.2.0 in REDACTED, but v1.4.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/grpc-ecosystem/go-grpc-middleware@v1.4.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/rs/cors — `github.com/rs/cors` is required at v1.7.0 in REDACTED, but v1.11.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/rs/cors@v1.11.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/vardius/gorouter/v4 — `github.com/vardius/gorouter/v4` is required at v4.5.1 in REDACTED, but v4.6.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/vardius/gorouter/v4@v4.6.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/vardius/message-bus — `github.com/vardius/message-bus` is required at v1.1.4 in REDACTED, but v1.1.5 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/vardius/message-bus@v1.1.5 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/vardius/pubsub/v2 — `github.com/vardius/pubsub/v2` is required at v2.0.0 in REDACTED, but v2.0.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/vardius/pubsub/v2@v2.0.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/vardius/pushpull — `github.com/vardius/pushpull` is required at v1.0.0 in REDACTED, but v1.0.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/vardius/pushpull@v1.0.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/oauth2 — `golang.org/x/oauth2` is required at v0.0.0-20200107190931-bf48bf16ab8d in REDACTED, but v0.37.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/oauth2@v0.37.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/time — `golang.org/x/time` is required at v0.0.0-20200416051211-89c76fbcd5d1 in REDACTED, but v0.16.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/time@v0.16.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: google.golang.org/grpc — `google.golang.org/grpc` is required at v1.28.0 in REDACTED, but v1.84.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get google.golang.org/grpc@v1.84.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: google.golang.org/protobuf — `google.golang.org/protobuf` is required at v1.27.1 in REDACTED, but v1.36.12 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get google.golang.org/protobuf@v1.36.12 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: gopkg.in/oauth2.v4 — `gopkg.in/oauth2.v4` is required at v4.0.0 in REDACTED, but v4.6.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get gopkg.in/oauth2.v4@v4.6.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.

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-e94034acd6d149d6a3098c9181b59cb9/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	10	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-e94034acd6d149d6a3098c9181b59cb9/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	4	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 .	22	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	113	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	21	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	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a1624c-8630-701c-8971-1282c7d08e0b · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 87% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 78% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 56% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 29% · Weak · gated by D13, R8, P3, P5, P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 48% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29, D30, D36 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 77% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Event-Driven · 68% · Strong ·

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 75% · Strong ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 57% · Adequate ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts