Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
xiaoshanw/DNF-Limit carries serious gaps (34%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Security (100%) — its security and compliance posture is in good shape. Architecture (80%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (17%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (29%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage (Code Coverage).
For scale: — (~0 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly — (—). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Security foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
58%
Adequate · gated by D18, D17
Architecture
80%
Adequate · gated by D6
Maturity
29%
Weak · gated by M2, M4
Readiness
17% ⚠
Critical · gated by D8, D9, P1, P2, P3
Security
100% ★
Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 17% · 47% weightMaturity 29% · 26% weightCode Health 58% · 14% weightArchitecture 80% · 8% weightSecurity 100% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 17 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 34 → ~49.
Code composition — where the lines go
Generated 100%
New since the last scan (6+)
- D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb
- D35 · Change coupling: Main.vb ↔ vCode.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb
- D35 · Change coupling: AssemblyInfo.vb ↔ vCode.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/My Project/AssemblyInfo.vb
- D35 · Change coupling: Main.vb ↔ AssemblyInfo.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb
- P2 · No structured logging
- SC1 · NuGet dependencies are not locked
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Maturity
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
Roadmap
First, establish a continuous integration pipeline to automatically build and test every change. Next, implement structured logging and health checks to improve system observability. Then, address the lack of automated tests by resolving the identified coverage gaps and ensuring all components are tested. Finally, begin documenting key architectural decisions to preserve institutional knowledge.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +14.4 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +14.4 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +17.9 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +17.9 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +12.4 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Reconcile the README with reality: README claims .NET Framework 2.0 and 4.5 but the repository contains no .NET assemblies; README claims WinXP/Win7/Win10/.NET 2.0/4.5 but there are no Windows project directories in evidence. | +12.4 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map. | +11.4 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. | +9.2 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb | 1.0 | Slop | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb | 2.3 | Slop | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| D♂N♂F神秘力量/vMsg.vb | 2.9 | Slop | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| D♂N♂F神秘力量/vList.vb | 3.3 | Slop | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| D♂N♂F神秘力量/vLimit.vb | 4.2 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| D♂N♂F神秘力量/DisableTGuardSvc.vb | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: disabketguardsvc.Disable_TGuardSvc_All (cyclomatic 17) |
| D♂N♂F神秘力量/My Project/AssemblyInfo.vb | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: AssemblyInfo.vb ↔ vCode.vb |
| D♂N♂F神秘力量/D♂N♂F神秘力量.vbproj | 9.5 | Near-clean | Solution Shape: Shell project: D♂N♂F神秘力量 |
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. 30 of 32 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 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 32 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D12D13D15D17D18D19D21D26D28D29D30D35AX5GD1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3X1X3X4
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, 64 of 73 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- 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.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- 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 (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- 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.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
4 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was vMSG.Button1_Click at 34.
vMSG.Button1_Click (cyclomatic 34)D♂N♂F神秘力量/vMsg.vb:38
Main.AutoKill_GameLoader_Tick (cyclomatic 29)D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:320
vCode.Find_DNF_Path (cyclomatic 18)D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:55
disabketguardsvc.Disable_TGuardSvc_All (cyclomatic 17)D♂N♂F神秘力量/DisableTGuardSvc.vb:57
What to do
- Resolve the 1 vMSG.Button1_Click (cyclomatic 34) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with vMsg.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Main.AutoKill_GameLoader_Tick (cyclomatic 29) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Main.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 vCode.Find_DNF_Path (cyclomatic 18) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with vCode.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
10 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Main.AutoKill_GameLoader_Tick at 62.
Main.AutoKill_GameLoader_Tick (cognitive 62)D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:320
vMSG.Button1_Click (cognitive 56)D♂N♂F神秘力量/vMsg.vb:38
disabketguardsvc.Disable_TGuardSvc_All (cognitive 46)D♂N♂F神秘力量/DisableTGuardSvc.vb:57
vCode.Find_DNF_Path (cognitive 43)D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:55
vCode.Kill_Process (cognitive 37)D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:107
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Main.AutoKill_GameLoader_Tick (cognitive 62) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Main.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 vMSG.Button1_Click (cognitive 56) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with vMsg.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 disabketguardsvc.Disable_TGuardSvc_All (cognitive 46) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DisableTGuardSvc.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
3 god class(es) detected.
FileTooLong: D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:0
TooManyMethods: Main D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:0
ClassTooLong: vCodeD♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:0
What to do
- Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Main.vb, vCode.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Main.vb, vLimit.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with vCode.vb. — 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
4 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:246
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:302
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)D♂N♂F神秘力量/vLimit.vb:163
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)D♂N♂F神秘力量/vMsg.vb:48
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
1 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
1 of 1 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Low cohesion: Main (LCOM4 19)D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:1
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with Main.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — the solution has no test code.
No automated tests
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
35 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 2031 LoC (8.7/KLoC) → score 0.0.
EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:254
What to do
- Resolve the 35 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Main.vb (13), vCode.vb (12), vList.vb (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (35 issue-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
1 projects, 0 .cs files, 2031 hand-written lines of code (2031 production / 0 test), plus 1512 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 0 inter-project edges (build failed).
Shell project: D♂N♂F神秘力量D♂N♂F神秘力量/D♂N♂F神秘力量.vbproj
Build did not complete in the analyzer
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with D♂N♂F神秘力量.vbproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
This README file (and its companion .NET download links) lists Windows versions and release history with commit dates for a .NET framework project but contains no architecture or usage documentation. The body is a verbatim list of version numbers, release notes, and build-variant details; there are no sections describing what the library does, how to install it, or how to use its API.
XML-doc coverage: D♂N♂F神秘力量D♂N♂F神秘力量/D♂N♂F神秘力量.vbproj
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 3.0/10. — This README file (and its companion .NET download links) lists Windows versions and release history with commit dates for a .NET framework project but contains no architecture or usage documentation. The body is a verbatim list of version numbers, release notes, and build-variant details; there are no sections describing what the library does, how to install it, or how to use its API.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: Main.vb↔vCode.vb 100%; AssemblyInfo.vb↔vCode.vb 93%; Main.vb↔AssemblyInfo.vb 88%
Change coupling: Main.vb ↔ vCode.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb
git history depth insufficient
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with Main.vb (2), AssemblyInfo.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
- The root README is 78 words — likely missing build/run/architecture context.
What to do
- Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README claims .NET Framework 2.0 and 4.5 but the repository contains no .NET assemblies
- README claims WinXP/Win7/Win10/.NET 2.0/4.5 but there are no Windows project directories in evidence
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README claims .NET Framework 2.0 and 4.5 but the repository contains no .NET assemblies; README claims WinXP/Win7/Win10/.NET 2.0/4.5 but there are no Windows project directories in evidence.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 58% | Adequate — gated by D18, D17 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 80% | Adequate — gated by D6 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 29% | Weak — gated by M2, M4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 17% | Critical — gated by D8, D9, P1, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not included — 59 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — no source files detected — code composition not applicable
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — no csproj graph available
- AX4 Dependency direction — no csproj graph available
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D16 Bus Factor — early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 2031 LoC in a single project the codebase is trivially small despite having no bounded contexts declared, so boundaries are not needed.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — no C# methods found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 36 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:254
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:282
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:331
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:339
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:352
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:357
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:408
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:453
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:464
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:477
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:553
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:671
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:727
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:102
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:126
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:143
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:175
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:182
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:201
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:353
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:361
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:377
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:409
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:463
- EmptyCatchBlock D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:545
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Warning — 27 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: Main.vb ↔ vCode.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb
- Change coupling: AssemblyInfo.vb ↔ vCode.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/My Project/AssemblyInfo.vb
- Change coupling: Main.vb ↔ AssemblyInfo.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:0
- FileTooLong: D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:0
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyMethods: Main D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:0
- TooManyMethods: vLimit D♂N♂F神秘力量/vLimit.vb:0
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- vMSG.Button1_Click (cyclomatic 34) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vMsg.vb:38
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Main.AutoKill_GameLoader_Tick (cyclomatic 29) D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:320
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- vCode.Find_DNF_Path (cyclomatic 18) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- disabketguardsvc.Disable_TGuardSvc_All (cyclomatic 17) D♂N♂F神秘力量/DisableTGuardSvc.vb:57
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Main.AutoKill_GameLoader_Tick (cognitive 62) D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:320
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- vMSG.Button1_Click (cognitive 56) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vMsg.vb:38
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- disabketguardsvc.Disable_TGuardSvc_All (cognitive 46) D♂N♂F神秘力量/DisableTGuardSvc.vb:57
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- vCode.Find_DNF_Path (cognitive 43) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- vCode.Kill_Process (cognitive 37) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:107
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Main.Button2_Click (cognitive 29) D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:75
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- vCode.Scan_For_Addon (cognitive 27) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:416
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Main.AutoKill_Kill_Tick (cognitive 22) D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:436
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- vList.Check_Status (cognitive 21) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vList.vb:15
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- vList.Exl_CellContentClick (cognitive 17) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vList.vb:50
D3 · God Classes
- ClassTooLong: vCode D♂N♂F神秘力量/vCode.vb:0
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:246
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:302
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vLimit.vb:163
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) D♂N♂F神秘力量/vMsg.vb:48
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
- Low cohesion: Main (LCOM4 19) D♂N♂F神秘力量/Main.vb:1
Recommendation — 5 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D16 · Bus Factor
- early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shell project: D♂N♂F神秘力量 D♂N♂F神秘力量/D♂N♂F神秘力量.vbproj
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 5 finding(s)
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- git history depth insufficient
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build did not complete in the analyzer
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: D♂N♂F神秘力量 D♂N♂F神秘力量/D♂N♂F神秘力量.vbproj
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D35 · Change Coupling
- git history depth insufficient
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list D♂N♂F神秘力量.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 0 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |