xkcoding/spring-boot-demo

Executive summary

xkcoding/spring-boot-demo scores 38 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 Accessibility, which scores 22 and is rated Weak. Its Text alternatives dimension scores 1 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Accessibility can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning and to resolve the 2 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance, and if Accessibility rose to 70, the score would rise from 38 to about 51.

195 findings are critical: 93 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, 46 in Test Quality, 16 in Secrets (history), 14 in Page structure, seven in REDACTED Scanning, seven in Static Analysis (SAST), six in Forms & labels, two in IaC & Container Security, two in License Compliance and two in Text alternatives.

Watchdog couldn't measure 39 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Dependency Hygiene, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 16,237 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €19,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 98 ★ Exemplary Architecture 94 ★ Exemplary Maturity 76 Adequate, capped by Knowledge Freshness Production Readiness 32 Adequate, capped by Test Quality, REDACTED Scanning, Security & performance tooling and Schema migrations Security and Compliance 65 Adequate, capped by Secrets (history), Static Analysis (SAST) and Dependency Vulnerabilities Domain Modelling 59 Adequate, capped by Rich vs anemic model and Repository granularity Accessibility 22 Weak, capped by Text alternatives, Forms & labels, Page structure and Visual & motion safety

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.

Accessibility 22 · counts for 46%Production Readiness 32 · counts for 25%Domain Modelling 59 · counts for 14%Security and Compliance 65 · counts for 8%Maturity 76 · counts for 4%Architecture 94 · counts for 2%Code Health 98 · counts for 1%

If Accessibility rose from 22 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 38 to about 51.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 84%Tests 16%

New since the last survey: 49 findings

These 49 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 10 October 2026.

REDACTED Scanning · REDACTED
REDACTED Scanning · REDACTED
REDACTED Scanning · REDACTED
Secrets (history) · REDACTED
Secrets (history) · REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto outside the migrations demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/resources/application.yml
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto outside the migrations demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/resources/application.yml
Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto outside the migrations demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/application.yml
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/libs/iview/iview.css
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/libs/iview/iview.css

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: 43 findings

These 43 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 10 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Text alternatives · <img> without a text alternative demo-email/target/classes/templates/welcome.html
Text alternatives · <img> without a text alternative demo-email/target/classes/templates/welcome.html
Forms & labels · <input> without a programmatic label demo-template-enjoy/target/classes/templates/page/login.html
Forms & labels · <input> without a programmatic label demo-template-enjoy/target/classes/templates/page/login.html
Forms & labels · <input> without a programmatic label demo-template-thymeleaf/target/classes/templates/page/login.html
Forms & labels · <input> without a programmatic label demo-template-thymeleaf/target/classes/templates/page/login.html
Forms & labels · <input> without a programmatic label demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/index.html
Forms & labels · <input> without a programmatic label demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/index.html
Page structure · <html> without a lang demo-codegen/target/classes/static/index.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-codegen/target/classes/static/index.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-email/target/classes/templates/welcome.html
Page structure · <html> without a lang demo-exception-handler/target/classes/templates/error.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/target/classes/templates/authorization.html
Page structure · Document without a <title> demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/target/classes/templates/common/common.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/target/classes/templates/common/common.html
Page structure · Viewport restricts zoom demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/target/classes/templates/common/common.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/target/classes/templates/error.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/target/classes/templates/login.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/target/classes/templates/logout.html
Page structure · Document <title> is empty demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/target/classes/templates/registerTemplate.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/target/classes/templates/registerTemplate.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-session/target/classes/templates/index.html
Page structure · Empty <h1> heading demo-session/target/classes/templates/index.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-session/target/classes/templates/login.html
Page structure · Empty <h1> heading demo-session/target/classes/templates/login.html
Page structure · <html> without a lang demo-task-quartz/target/classes/static/job.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-task-quartz/target/classes/static/job.html
Page structure · Viewport restricts zoom demo-template-beetl/target/classes/templates/common/head.html
Page structure · Viewport restricts zoom demo-template-enjoy/target/classes/templates/common/head.html
Page structure · Document without a <title> demo-template-enjoy/target/classes/templates/page/index.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-template-enjoy/target/classes/templates/page/index.html
Page structure · Document without a <title> demo-template-enjoy/target/classes/templates/page/login.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-template-enjoy/target/classes/templates/page/login.html
Page structure · Viewport restricts zoom demo-template-thymeleaf/target/classes/templates/common/head.html
Page structure · Document without a <title> demo-template-thymeleaf/target/classes/templates/page/index.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-template-thymeleaf/target/classes/templates/page/index.html
Page structure · Document without a <title> demo-template-thymeleaf/target/classes/templates/page/login.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-template-thymeleaf/target/classes/templates/page/login.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-upload/target/classes/templates/index.html
Page structure · Viewport restricts zoom demo-upload/target/classes/templates/index.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/index.html
Page structure · Page without a main landmark demo-websocket/target/classes/static/server.html

Rebuild cost: about €19,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€6,300 to €32,000, for 105 to 333 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 38. 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: 16,237 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 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 9 points · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning

Resolve the 2 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · License Compliance

Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Medium effort · Text alternatives

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 €19,000 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Accessibility, at 22 (Critical). Accessibility is about whether the interface is built so that everyone can use it, including people who can't see the screen or can't use a mouse. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Accessibility also moves the score most.

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

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 7 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 9 points for low effort, because it clears the 7 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.

268 modules, with 136 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 5 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 228 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 codegen.common	2 codegen.entity	4 elasticsearch.model	6 ldap.api	7 ldap.entity	8 neo4j.model	9 oauth.entity	11 orm.jdbctemplate.entity	12 rbac.security.common	13 rbac.security.model	14 task.quartz.entity.domain	15 task.quartz.entity.form	16 websocket.model	18 codegen.service	20 ldap.service	22 oauth.service	23 orm.jdbctemplate.dao	24 orm.jdbctemplate.service	25 rbac.security.repository	26 rbac.security.vo	27 task.quartz.service	28 websocket.payload.server	34 rbac.security.util	37 websocket.payload	38 rbac.security.service	39 rbac.security.config
1 codegen.common
2 codegen.entity
3 dynamic.datasource.mapper
4 elasticsearch.model
5 exception.handler.model
6 ldap.api
7 ldap.entity
8 neo4j.model
9 oauth.entity
10 orm.beetlsql.service.impl
11 orm.jdbctemplate.entity
12 rbac.security.common
13 rbac.security.model
14 task.quartz.entity.domain
15 task.quartz.entity.form
16 websocket.model
17 websocket.socketio.handler
18 codegen.service	1	2
19 elasticsearch.service.impl			1
20 ldap.service				1	1
21 neo4j.repository						2
22 oauth.service							2
23 orm.jdbctemplate.dao								1
24 orm.jdbctemplate.service								1
25 rbac.security.repository										3
26 rbac.security.vo										4
27 task.quartz.service											1	1
28 websocket.payload.server																								5
29 codegen.controller	1	2												1
30 codegen.service.impl	1	2												1
31 ldap.service.impl				1	1										1
32 oauth.service.impl							2									2
33 orm.jdbctemplate.service.impl								1									1	1
34 rbac.security.util									3											1						1
35 task.quartz.controller												1									1
36 task.quartz.service.impl											1	1									1
37 websocket.payload													1									5
38 rbac.security.service									1										4	1			1
39 rbac.security.config																			2				1		2
40 rbac.security.controller									3														1		1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 98% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0

At a glance — Architecture · 94% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.1 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 76% · Adequate · gated by D34 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 7.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.9 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 9.9

The Ugly

D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 32% · Adequate · gated by D10, D13, P3, P8 ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 6.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P2 · Repo Observability 8.7

The Bad

P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 1.4 D13 · .NET / C# REDACTED Scanning 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 3.0

At a glance — Security · 65% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29, D30 ·

The Good

D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 9.2 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 8.5 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 8.0

The Ugly

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 0.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 2.3 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 59% · Adequate · gated by DM4, DM7 ·

The Good

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

The Ugly

DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 3.0 DM7 · Repo Repository granularity 1.0

At a glance — Accessibility · 22% · Weak · gated by AC1, AC2, AC3, AC6 ·

The Bad

AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 3.9 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

The Ugly

AC1 · Repo Text alternatives 1.0 AC3 · Repo Page structure 3.7 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 1.0

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	121	High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	24	High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection	21	High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	5	High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the seven leaked secrets in the codebase and address the two banned license findings to secure compliance. Enhance accessibility by adding text alternatives for media and ensuring visual safety through proper focus styles, motion guards, and color contrast. Finally, integrate automated security scanning into the CI pipeline to prevent future regressions from reaching production.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.	+8.6 pts	Low	REDACTED Scanning
Resolve the 2 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance.	+5.0 pts	Low	License Compliance
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.	+5.5 pts	Medium	Text alternatives
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.	+5.5 pts	Medium	Visual & motion safety
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+3.6 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.	+3.1 pts	Medium	Page structure
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.	+2.9 pts	Medium	Forms & labels
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain your project already uses: assert accessibility in your UI test suite with your toolkit's own matcher (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.	+2.8 pts	Medium	A11y enforcement

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 144 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 4% slop · 16% mixed · 80% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.7	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.4	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.0	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.5	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: 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 — 195

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 — 206

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 — 147

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

Could not be resolved — 40

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. 47 of 50 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 50 dimensions across the health lenses

D3D4D6D9D10D13D14D15D17D19D21D28D29D30D31D34D35D43D44AC1AC2AC3AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX6DM1DM11DM12DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8DM9M1M3M4P1P2P3P4P6P8S1X20

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, 539 of 548 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 01a16bef-caa2-7b06-8016-de46a0f8ac33.

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 MEASURED: test source is present (.java) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) 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 (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) 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.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.java) and this repository declares a JVM test suite (repository root, Maven), but it was not re-run: the analyzer environment could not run it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — a Maven build resolved 381 artifact(s) (318 behind a shipped release, reported), but the build resolved only part of the graph, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
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 (11 contributor(s) across 734 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 98% of the history; the other 10 hold 0.2% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: 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.
D26 Project Cohesion — 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. Project size and spread are measured over build units (a .NET project, a Maven or Gradle module, an npm, Deno or JSR package, a Go module, a Cargo crate, a Python, Composer, Bundler, RubyGems, Mix, rebar3, sbt, SwiftPM or pub package, an OTP application, an Xcode project or XcodeGen spec, or a checkout that declares no build at all) whose source a code model reads. This repository's production source is in a language no model reads, or in units whose build tool D26 does not recognise. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository's projects are cohesive.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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. Osv-scanner resolved org.codehaus.groovy:groovy 2.4.5 in demo-sharding-jdbc/pom.xml, but the org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-dependencies:2.1.0.RELEASE BOM that file imports manages it at 2.5.3 — the scanner resolved this pom without its BOM (it does so silently when the BOM cannot be fetched), so the 56 advisory row(s) it raised against this file's graph describe versions the build does not use and were withheld. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (osv) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; Maven (demo-sharding-jdbc/pom.xml) was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that Maven (demo-sharding-jdbc/pom.xml) is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — 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. 132 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 172.
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.
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 no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found in this repository, 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 no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found in this repository, 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.
P1 CI/CD gates — 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. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin was found in this repository, 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.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, 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.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, 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.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Rust, Swift, Ruby, Dart, PHP, Python and Go source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Rust, Swift, Ruby, Dart, PHP, Python or Go was found in this repository, 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.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust or Dart was found in this repository, 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.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, 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.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, 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.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, 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.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, 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.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python or Rust was found in this repository, 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.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript (Vue and Svelte components included), Java, Kotlin, Ruby, PHP, Python, Dart, Rust and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Ruby, PHP, Python, Dart, Rust or Scala was found in this repository, 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.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, 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.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, 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.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, 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.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, Kotlin, Scala, Go, Swift, Python and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no Java, Kotlin, Scala, Go, Swift, Python or Ruby was found in this repository, 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.
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 and no Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, 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.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# and Visual Basic syntax, and F#, Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Ruby, Go, Java, Kotlin, Swift, Dart, PHP, Rust, Elixir and Erlang source only, and no C# was loaded and no Visual Basic, F#, Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Ruby, Go, Java, Kotlin, Swift, Dart, PHP, Rust, Elixir or Erlang was found in this repository, 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.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, 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.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go, JavaScript or TypeScript was found in this repository, 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.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, 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 no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Rust was found in this repository, 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.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no TypeScript was found in this repository, 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.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 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 Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Java/Kotlin/Scala, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Swift, Erlang, Elixir and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and none of those languages was found in this repository, 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.

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.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
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.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
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".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 20 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

18 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 20 of the 20 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/DelayQueueHandler.java:29

Duplicated block (14 lines × 4)demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/DelayQueueHandler.java:31

Duplicated block (12 lines × 4)demo-template-beetl/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/beetl/controller/IndexController.java:26

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 3)demo-email/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/email/service/impl/MailServiceImpl.java:64

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)demo-websocket/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/util/IpUtil.java:114

+ 14 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DelayQueueHandler.java, IndexController.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DelayQueueHandler.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with IndexController.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 39 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

184 test methods: 184 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality1.4 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 132 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 184 tests (12 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty).

No assertions (empty test): contextLoads · ×46demo-actuator/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/actuator/SpringBootDemoActuatorApplicationTests.java:13

Test project verifies nothing: admin-client · ×44demo-admin/admin-client/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/admin/client/SpringBootDemoAdminClientApplicationTests.java:13

No assertions: contextLoads · ×13demo-activiti/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/activiti/SpringBootDemoActivitiApplicationTests.java:24

No direct assertions: deleteUser · ×73demo-cache-ehcache/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/UserServiceTest.java:54

Test project verifies nothing: demo-cache-ehcache · ×11demo-cache-ehcache/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/UserServiceTest.java:54

What to do

Resolve the 46 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SpringBootDemoActuatorApplicationTests.java, SpringBootDemoAdminClientApplicationTests.java, SpringBootDemoAdminServerApplicationTests.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (46 issue-level).
Resolve the 44 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SpringBootDemoAdminClientApplicationTests.java, SpringBootDemoActivitiApplicationTests.java, SpringBootDemoActuatorApplicationTests.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (44 warning-level).
Resolve the 13 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SpringBootDemoZookeeperApplicationTests.java (3), TaskFactoryTest.java (2), CodeGenServiceTest.java (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · REDACTED Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

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

5 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 7 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Enforce REDACTED Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 37 declared JVM dependency artifact(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from the POMs Maven Central publishes, over the coordinates this repository's 70 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) declare with a version resolvable from the manifest itself — the same declaration-site closure this analysis reads for dependency currency. The JVM has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry, so this is deliberately NOT the transitive closure. 332 further coordinate(s) are declared with no version at the declaration site — inherited from a parent POM, a BOM or an unresolved Gradle version reference — and are NOT graded: this verdict covers what the checkout pins, not the full transitive graph. A further 1 coordinate(s) are not published to Maven Central — another repository (Google's Maven hosts androidx), a SNAPSHOT, or a private artifact — so their licences are not readable from here and they are outside this verdict.

Banned license: com.xuxueli:xxl-job-core · ×2

What to do

Resolve the 2 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Enforce License Compliance in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 4 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

4 deducted task-comment markers across 16237 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 · ×2demo-ratelimit-redis/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ratelimit/redis/aspect/RateLimiterAspect.java:60

FixmeComment · ×2REDACTED:38

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

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

The repository's root README gives a strong overview (66 integration demos, 55 completed) and links to the Codacy grade badge plus an author link, but it is itself clipped mid-document. The individual demo directories each document their own directory (e.g. spring-boot-demo-actuator/README.md for actuator), so the root README only needs to state what the repository does and its installation/usage; the summary finds no such guidance in the visible text. (16 of 25 sampled documents could not be assessed: 2 of 3 evaluation groups failed.)

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The repository's root README gives a strong overview (66 integration demos, 55 completed) and links to the Codacy grade badge plus an author link, but it is itself clipped mid-document. The individual demo directories each document their own directory (e.g. spring-boot-demo-actuator/README.md for actuator), so the root README only needs to state what the repository does and its installation/usage; the summary finds no such guidance in the visible text. (16 of 25 sampled documents could not be assessed: 2 of 3 evaluation groups failed.)

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: REDACTED scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 12 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (8), REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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)2.3 / 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 2.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

21 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 11 medium, 3 low. 2 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens.

REDACTED

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

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

121 finding(s): 50 critical, 43 high, 26 medium, 2 low. Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (osv), and the findings above are real and complete for them. Maven (demo-sharding-jdbc/pom.xml) was not scanned (Maven (demo-sharding-jdbc/pom.xml): osv-scanner resolved org.codehaus.groovy:groovy 2.4.5 in demo-sharding-jdbc/pom.xml, but the org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-dependencies:2.1.0.RELEASE BOM that file imports manages it at 2.5.3 — the scanner resolved this pom without its BOM (it does so silently when the BOM cannot be fetched), so the 56 advisory row(s) it raised against this file's graph describe versions the build does not use and were withheld), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 50 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (50). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (50 issue-level).
Resolve the 43 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (43). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (43 issue-level).
Resolve the 26 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (26). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (26 warning-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 Security9.2 / 10Adequategated by 2 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 1 medium, 2 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 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

49 of 49 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is demo-codegen/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/utils/CodeGenUtil.java. Counted over 49 of the 392 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×49demo-codegen/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/utils/CodeGenUtil.java:1

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 49 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with UserController.java (2), ApiResponse.java (2), PersonServiceImpl.java (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (49 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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-Life8.5 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 1 end-of-life framework(s), read from 67 platform declaration(s) and 112 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

End-of-life framework: Spring Boot 2REDACTED:1

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC1 · Text alternatives1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. (×2) — REDACTED:35, REDACTED:40

What to do

Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC2 · Forms & labels3.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. (×6) — demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:7, demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:8, demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:7, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure3.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). (×3) — demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2, demo-exception-handler/src/main/resources/templates/error.html:2, demo-task-quartz/src/main/resources/static/job.html:2
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×18) — demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2, REDACTED:2, demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/authorization.html:2, …
A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. (×5) — demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/common/common.html:2, demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/index.html:2, demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:2, …
user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta. (×5) — demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/common/common.html:6, demo-template-beetl/src/main/resources/templates/common/head.html:3, demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/common/head.html:3, …
An empty <title> gives no page name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Put descriptive text in the <title>. — demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/registerTemplate.html:2
An empty heading appears in the document outline announced with no text. Give the heading text, or remove it if it's decorative. (×2) — demo-session/src/main/resources/templates/index.html:8, demo-session/src/main/resources/templates/login.html:8

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?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

`.nav-tabs .open .dropdown-toggle, .nav-pills .open .dropdown-toggle, .nav > li.dropdown.open.active > a:hover` sets color: #ffffff on background-color: #999999 — 2.8:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. (×2) — demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:3435, demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:3435
`.open .dropdown-toggle` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:2366, demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:2366
`.btn.active` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:2659, demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:2659
`.btn-group.open .dropdown-toggle` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:3041, demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:3041
`.navbar-search .search-query.focused` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:3738, demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:3738
`a` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1, demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-message-notice-close` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1, demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-notice-notice-close` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1, demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-input-number-focused` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1, demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-input-number-input` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-form-item-error .ivu-input-number-focused` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-scroll-wrapper` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-page-simple .ivu-page-simple-pager input` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-modal` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-modal-wrap` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-select-selection` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-select-visible .ivu-select-selection` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-select-input` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-form-item-error .ivu-select-visible .ivu-select-selection` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-tabs-bar` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-tabs-nav-container:focus` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-tabs .ivu-tabs-tabpane` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-menu` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-menu-item` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-date-picker-focused input` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-carousel-arrow` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-carousel-dots li button` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-color-picker-focused` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-color-picker-color-focused` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-color-picker-picker-colors-wrapper-color` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1
`.ivu-drawer-wrap` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. — demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 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 accessibility linting at author time and no automated accessibility check in tests or CI. Add your UI toolkit's own accessibility assertion to the test suite (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in the pipeline. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 23 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 your project already uses: assert accessibility in your UI test suite with your toolkit's own matcher (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition8.1 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.

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?

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?

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 model3.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

`Permission` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/Permission.java:21
`Role` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/Role.java:21
`RolePermission` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/RolePermission.java:21
`User` is an aggregate/entity with 11 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/User.java:21
`UserRole` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/UserRole.java:21
`SysClientDetails` is an aggregate/entity with 11 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/entity/SysClientDetails.java:26
`SysRole` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/entity/SysRole.java:23
`SysUser` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/entity/SysUser.java:27
`DatasourceConfig` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — demo-dynamic-datasource/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/dynamic/datasource/model/DatasourceConfig.java:21

What to do

Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM7 · Repository granularity1.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

`PermissionDao` is a repository over `Permission`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Permission` through its owning aggregate instead. — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/PermissionDao.java:19
`RoleDao` is a repository over `Role`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Role` through its owning aggregate instead. — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/RoleDao.java:19
`RolePermissionDao` is a repository over `RolePermission`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `RolePermission` through its owning aggregate instead. — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/RolePermissionDao.java:16
`UserDao` is a repository over `User`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `User` through its owning aggregate instead. (×2) — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/UserDao.java:18, demo-orm-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/orm/jpa/repository/UserDao.java:16
`UserRoleDao` is a repository over `UserRole`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `UserRole` through its owning aggregate instead. — demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/UserRoleDao.java:16
`DepartmentDao` is a repository over `Department`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Department` through its owning aggregate instead. — demo-orm-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/orm/jpa/repository/DepartmentDao.java:19
`SysClientDetailsRepository` is a repository over `SysClientDetails`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `SysClientDetails` through its owning aggregate instead. — demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/repostiory/SysClientDetailsRepository.java:15
`SysUserRepository` is a repository over `SysUser`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `SysUser` through its owning aggregate instead. — demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/repostiory/SysUserRepository.java:14
`PrimaryMultiTableRepository` is a repository over `PrimaryMultiTable`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `PrimaryMultiTable` through its owning aggregate instead. — demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/repository/primary/PrimaryMultiTableRepository.java:16
`SecondMultiTableRepository` is a repository over `SecondMultiTable`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `SecondMultiTable` through its owning aggregate instead. — demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/repository/second/SecondMultiTableRepository.java:16

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
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.
Add a README to the 4 of 69 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.1 pts.

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 accuracy9.9 / 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.

demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/README.md runs `docker-compose -f elasticsearch.yaml up -d`, but `elasticsearch.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. — demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/README.md:51

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/README.md runs `docker-compose -f elasticsearch.yaml up -d`, but `elasticsearch.yaml` does not exist.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`mvn test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability8.7 / 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.

Only 37/65 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `demo-actuator`, `demo-admin/admin-client`, `demo-admin/admin-server`, `demo-docker`, `demo-elasticsearch` and 23 more.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

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 spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (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 710 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: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — 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 & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

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?

P8 · Schema migrations3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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.

This repository versions its schema (Flyway), but Hibernate ddl-auto here builds or alters the schema from the model as well, outside that history — the two paths can disagree about the shape, and a change made this way is never a reviewed migration. Turn it off and let Flyway own the schema. (×3) — demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/resources/application.yml:38, demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/resources/application.yml:47, demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/application.yml:17

What to do

Turn off Hibernate ddl-auto in production and let the versioned migrations own the schema.

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — markup this repository SHIPS is scored for third-party script integrity whether or not the repository serves it itself, since a page handed to a consumer runs in that consumer’s origin. Nothing else in this dimension was assessed: the transport, cookie, input-validation and crypto controls are read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository’s language, so their absence here is not a finding about this repository.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

`https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/vue@2.x/dist/vue.js` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. 12 such include(s) across the repository's markup. — demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/common/common.html:29

What to do

Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script). Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 13 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (24%; ≈26% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 42 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

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

Not statically assessed — these 42 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	98%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Architecture	94%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	76%	Adequate — gated by D34	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	32%	Adequate — gated by D10, D13, P3, P8	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	65%	Adequate — gated by D28, D29, D30	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	59%	Adequate — gated by DM4, DM7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility	22%	Weak — gated by AC1, AC2, AC3, AC6	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

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

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

D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 1 observation(s) recorded · The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.

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

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

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

Not included — 75 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.

AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No ARIA usage found in the parsed markup — AC5 not applicable here.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) 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.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — cyclomatic complexity does not apply: all 986 method(s) the analysis read sit in demonstration, test, vendored or generated trees, so this repository has no authored production method to measure. Not scored.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .java suite was found but not re-run
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — a Maven build resolved 381 artifact(s) (318 behind a shipped release, reported), but the build resolved only part of the graph, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
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.
D2 Cognitive Complexity — cognitive complexity does not apply: all 986 method(s) the analysis read sit in demonstration, test, vendored or generated trees, so this repository has no authored production method to measure. Not scored.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Aggregate roots were found in only one source directory (dynamic), which is a layered codebase, not two contexts. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — D26 measured no build unit over this repository's .java, .js, .lua source. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.java), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this Maven build ships 0 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
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
DM10 One transaction, one aggregate — no repository writes detected — no operation to judge against the one-aggregate rule
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
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
M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) 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 tinybench, mitata, benchmark.js, benny or vitest `bench(...)` calls in files that import them (or `*.bench.*` files), or one of those in a package.json, 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 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
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — 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
X13 Undrained process stream — 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
X14 Bypassable address classification — 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
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — 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
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — 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
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X19 Unrestored process-global state — 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
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — 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
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — 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
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — 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
X25 Inert configuration knob — 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
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — 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
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
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — 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
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — 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
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — 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
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 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
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 — 195 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×50

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
+ 25 more in this group — see findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×46

No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-actuator/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/actuator/SpringBootDemoActuatorApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-admin/admin-client/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/admin/client/SpringBootDemoAdminClientApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-admin/admin-server/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/admin/server/SpringBootDemoAdminServerApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-async/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/async/SpringBootDemoAsyncApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-codegen/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/SpringBootDemoCodegenApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-docker/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/docker/SpringBootDemoDockerApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-dubbo/dubbo-consumer/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/dubbo/consumer/SpringBootDemoDubboConsumerApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-dubbo/dubbo-provider/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/dubbo/provider/SpringBootDemoDubboProviderApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-dynamic-datasource/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/dynamic/datasource/SpringBootDemoDynamicDatasourceApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-exception-handler/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/exception/handler/SpringBootDemoExceptionHandlerApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-graylog/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/graylog/SpringBootDemoGraylogApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-helloworld/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/helloworld/SpringBootDemoHelloworldApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-https/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/https/SpringBootDemoHttpsApplicationTests.java:10 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-log-aop/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/log/aop/SpringBootDemoLogAopApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-logback/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/logback/SpringBootDemoLogbackApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-mq-rocketmq/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rocketmq/SpringBootDemoMqRocketmqApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-multi-datasource-mybatis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/mybatis/SpringBootDemoMultiDatasourceMybatisApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-orm-beetlsql/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/orm/beetlsql/SpringBootDemoOrmBeetlsqlApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-orm-jdbctemplate/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/orm/jdbctemplate/SpringBootDemoOrmJdbctemplateApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-orm-jpa/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/orm/jpa/SpringBootDemoOrmJpaApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-orm-mybatis-mapper-page/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/orm/mybatis/MapperAndPage/SpringBootDemoOrmMybatisMapperPageApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-orm-mybatis-plus/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/orm/mybatis/plus/SpringBootDemoOrmMybatisPlusApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-orm-mybatis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/orm/mybatis/SpringBootDemoOrmMybatisApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-pay/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/pay/SpringBootDemoPayApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
No assertions (empty test): contextLoads demo-properties/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/properties/SpringBootDemoPropertiesApplicationTests.java:13 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
+ 21 more in this group — see findings.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×43

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
+ 18 more in this group — see findings.md.

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×12

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

D13 · REDACTED Scanning · Leaked secret · ×7

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AC2 · Forms & labels · <input> without a programmatic label · ×6

<input> without a programmatic label demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:7 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:8 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:7 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:8 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/index.html:172 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
<input> without a programmatic label demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/index.html:173 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.

AC3 · Page structure · Document without a <title> · ×5

Document without a <title> demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/common/common.html:2 — A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>.
Document without a <title> demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/index.html:2 — A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>.
Document without a <title> demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:2 — A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>.
Document without a <title> demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/resources/templates/page/index.html:2 — A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>.
Document without a <title> demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:2 — A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>.

AC3 · Page structure · Viewport restricts zoom · ×5

Viewport restricts zoom demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/common/common.html:6 — user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta.
Viewport restricts zoom demo-template-beetl/src/main/resources/templates/common/head.html:3 — user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta.
Viewport restricts zoom demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/common/head.html:3 — user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta.
Viewport restricts zoom demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/resources/templates/common/head.html:5 — user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta.
Viewport restricts zoom demo-upload/src/main/resources/templates/index.html:5 — user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AC3 · Page structure · <html> without a lang · ×3

<html> without a lang demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2 — The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
<html> without a lang demo-exception-handler/src/main/resources/templates/error.html:2 — The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").
<html> without a lang demo-task-quartz/src/main/resources/static/job.html:2 — The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en").

AC1 · Text alternatives · <img> without a text alternative · ×2

<img> without a text alternative REDACTED:35 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative REDACTED:40 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.

D14 · License Compliance · Banned license · ×2

Banned license: com.xuxueli:xxl-job-core — `com.xuxueli:xxl-job-core` 2.1.0 is published on Maven Central under `GPL-3.0`, which this policy bans, and this repository declares it in a Maven or Gradle manifest. The licence was read from the artifact's POM `<licenses>` block — following `<parent>` where the POM inherits them — and normalised to SPDX before it was judged, because Maven publishes the name as free text (`GNU Affero General Public License v3` is AGPL-3.0). Where a POM lists several licences they are read as a CHOICE, per Maven's own documentation, so this is charged only because EVERY listed licence is banned. Replace the dependency, or record an accepted exception.
Banned license: com.xkcoding:justauth-spring-boot-starter — `com.xkcoding:justauth-spring-boot-starter` 1.1.0 is published on Maven Central under `LGPL-3.0`, which this policy bans, and this repository declares it in a Maven or Gradle manifest. The licence was read from the artifact's POM `<licenses>` block — following `<parent>` where the POM inherits them — and normalised to SPDX before it was judged, because Maven publishes the name as free text (`GNU Affero General Public License v3` is AGPL-3.0). Where a POM lists several licences they are read as a CHOICE, per Maven's own documentation, so this is charged only because EVERY listed licence is banned. Replace the dependency, or record an accepted exception.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

AC3 · Page structure · Document <title> is empty · ×1

Document <title> is empty demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/registerTemplate.html:2 — An empty <title> gives no page name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Put descriptive text in the <title>.

Serious — 206 finding(s)

D10 · Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing · ×44

Test project verifies nothing: admin-client demo-admin/admin-client/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/admin/client/SpringBootDemoAdminClientApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `admin-client` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-activiti demo-activiti/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/activiti/SpringBootDemoActivitiApplicationTests.java:24 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-activiti` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-actuator demo-actuator/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/actuator/SpringBootDemoActuatorApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-actuator` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-admin-server demo-admin/admin-server/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/admin/server/SpringBootDemoAdminServerApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-admin-server` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-async demo-async/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/async/task/TaskFactoryTest.java:28 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 3 of 3 tests in `demo-async` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-codegen demo-codegen/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/CodeGenServiceTest.java:52 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 3 of 3 tests in `demo-codegen` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-docker demo-docker/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/docker/SpringBootDemoDockerApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-docker` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-dynamic-datasource demo-dynamic-datasource/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/dynamic/datasource/SpringBootDemoDynamicDatasourceApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-dynamic-datasource` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-exception-handler demo-exception-handler/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/exception/handler/SpringBootDemoExceptionHandlerApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-exception-handler` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-graylog demo-graylog/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/graylog/SpringBootDemoGraylogApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-graylog` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-helloworld demo-helloworld/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/helloworld/SpringBootDemoHelloworldApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-helloworld` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-https demo-https/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/https/SpringBootDemoHttpsApplicationTests.java:10 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-https` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-log-aop demo-log-aop/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/log/aop/SpringBootDemoLogAopApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-log-aop` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-logback demo-logback/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/logback/SpringBootDemoLogbackApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-logback` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-mq-kafka demo-mq-kafka/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/mq/kafka/SpringBootDemoMqKafkaApplicationTests.java:21 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-mq-kafka` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-mq-rocketmq demo-mq-rocketmq/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rocketmq/SpringBootDemoMqRocketmqApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-mq-rocketmq` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-multi-datasource-mybatis demo-multi-datasource-mybatis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/mybatis/service/impl/UserServiceImplTest.java:31 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 3 of 3 tests in `demo-multi-datasource-mybatis` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-orm-jdbctemplate demo-orm-jdbctemplate/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/orm/jdbctemplate/SpringBootDemoOrmJdbctemplateApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-orm-jdbctemplate` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-pay demo-pay/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/pay/SpringBootDemoPayApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-pay` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-properties demo-properties/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/properties/SpringBootDemoPropertiesApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-properties` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-ratelimit-guava demo-ratelimit-guava/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/ratelimit/guava/SpringBootDemoRatelimitGuavaApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-ratelimit-guava` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-ratelimit-redis demo-ratelimit-redis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/ratelimit/redis/SpringBootDemoRatelimiterRedisApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-ratelimit-redis` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-rbac-shiro demo-rbac-shiro/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/shiro/SpringBootDemoRbacShiroApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-rbac-shiro` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-session demo-session/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/session/SpringBootDemoSessionApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-session` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-social demo-social/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/social/SpringBootDemoSocialApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `demo-social` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
+ 19 more in this group — see findings.md.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a · ×38

Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:2366 — `.open .dropdown-toggle` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:2659 — `.btn.active` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:3041 — `.btn-group.open .dropdown-toggle` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:3738 — `.navbar-search .search-query.focused` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:2366 — `.open .dropdown-toggle` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:2659 — `.btn.active` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:3041 — `.btn-group.open .dropdown-toggle` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:3738 — `.navbar-search .search-query.focused` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `a` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-message-notice-close` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-notice-notice-close` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-input-number-focused` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-input-number-input` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-form-item-error .ivu-input-number-focused` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-scroll-wrapper` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-page-simple .ivu-page-simple-pager input` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-modal` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-modal-wrap` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-select-selection` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-select-visible .ivu-select-selection` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-select-input` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-form-item-error .ivu-select-visible .ivu-select-selection` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-tabs-bar` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-tabs-nav-container:focus` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement demo-codegen/target/classes/static/libs/iview/iview.css:1 — `.ivu-tabs .ivu-tabs-tabpane` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible.
+ 13 more in this group — see findings.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×26

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
+ 1 more in this group — see findings.md.

AC3 · Page structure · Page without a main landmark · ×18

Page without a main landmark demo-codegen/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark REDACTED:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/authorization.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/common/common.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/error.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/login.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/logout.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/registerTemplate.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-session/src/main/resources/templates/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-session/src/main/resources/templates/login.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-task-quartz/src/main/resources/static/job.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-template-enjoy/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/resources/templates/page/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/resources/templates/page/login.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-upload/src/main/resources/templates/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark demo-websocket/src/main/resources/static/server.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×13

No assertions: contextLoads demo-activiti/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/activiti/SpringBootDemoActivitiApplicationTests.java:24 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: asyncTaskTest demo-async/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/async/task/TaskFactoryTest.java:28 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: taskTest demo-async/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/async/task/TaskFactoryTest.java:47 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testGeneratorCode demo-codegen/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/CodeGenServiceTest.java:52 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testTablePage demo-codegen/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/CodeGenServiceTest.java:37 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testSend demo-mq-kafka/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/mq/kafka/SpringBootDemoMqKafkaApplicationTests.java:21 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: addUser demo-multi-datasource-mybatis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/mybatis/service/impl/UserServiceImplTest.java:31 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testListUser demo-multi-datasource-mybatis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/mybatis/service/impl/UserServiceImplTest.java:43 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: getPasswordWhenPassed demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/PasswordEncodeTest.java:18 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testSave demo-orm-jpa/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/orm/jpa/repository/DepartmentDaoTest.java:36 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test demo-zookeeper/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/zookeeper/SpringBootDemoZookeeperApplicationTests.java:39 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testAopLock demo-zookeeper/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/zookeeper/SpringBootDemoZookeeperApplicationTests.java:49 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testManualLock demo-zookeeper/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/zookeeper/SpringBootDemoZookeeperApplicationTests.java:65 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion was recognised in it. Recognised: JUnit's assertion methods (assertEquals, assertTrue, assertInstanceOf, assertThrows, assertThrowsExactly, assertTimeoutPreemptively, assertAll and the rest of JUnit 5's list), assertThat (AssertJ, Hamcrest, Truth), fail, Mockito's verify and the `assert` statement, in the test body and in helper methods of the test's own class or an in-repository base class, followed three calls deep. Verification through a helper on another object or in another class, through a custom matcher library, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.

DM7 · Repository granularity · Repository for a non-root entity · ×11

Repository for a non-root entity: PermissionDao → Permission demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/PermissionDao.java:19 — `PermissionDao` is a repository over `Permission`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Permission` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: RoleDao → Role demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/RoleDao.java:19 — `RoleDao` is a repository over `Role`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Role` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: RolePermissionDao → RolePermission demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/RolePermissionDao.java:16 — `RolePermissionDao` is a repository over `RolePermission`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `RolePermission` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: UserDao → User demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/UserDao.java:18 — `UserDao` is a repository over `User`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `User` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: UserRoleDao → UserRole demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/repository/UserRoleDao.java:16 — `UserRoleDao` is a repository over `UserRole`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `UserRole` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: DepartmentDao → Department demo-orm-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/orm/jpa/repository/DepartmentDao.java:19 — `DepartmentDao` is a repository over `Department`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Department` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: UserDao → User demo-orm-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/orm/jpa/repository/UserDao.java:16 — `UserDao` is a repository over `User`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `User` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: SysClientDetailsRepository → SysClientDetails demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/repostiory/SysClientDetailsRepository.java:15 — `SysClientDetailsRepository` is a repository over `SysClientDetails`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `SysClientDetails` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: SysUserRepository → SysUser demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/repostiory/SysUserRepository.java:14 — `SysUserRepository` is a repository over `SysUser`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `SysUser` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: PrimaryMultiTableRepository → PrimaryMultiTable demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/repository/primary/PrimaryMultiTableRepository.java:16 — `PrimaryMultiTableRepository` is a repository over `PrimaryMultiTable`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `PrimaryMultiTable` through its owning aggregate instead.
Repository for a non-root entity: SecondMultiTableRepository → SecondMultiTable demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/repository/second/SecondMultiTableRepository.java:16 — `SecondMultiTableRepository` is a repository over `SecondMultiTable`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT — loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `SecondMultiTable` through its owning aggregate instead.

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model · Anemic entity · ×9

Anemic entity: Permission demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/Permission.java:21 — `Permission` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Role demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/Role.java:21 — `Role` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: RolePermission demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/RolePermission.java:21 — `RolePermission` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: User demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/User.java:21 — `User` is an aggregate/entity with 11 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: UserRole demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/model/UserRole.java:21 — `UserRole` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: SysClientDetails demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/entity/SysClientDetails.java:26 — `SysClientDetails` is an aggregate/entity with 11 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: SysRole demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/entity/SysRole.java:23 — `SysRole` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: SysUser demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/oauth/entity/SysUser.java:27 — `SysUser` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: DatasourceConfig demo-dynamic-datasource/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/dynamic/datasource/model/DatasourceConfig.java:21 — `DatasourceConfig` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.

P8 · Schema migrations · Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto outside the migrations · ×3

Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto outside the migrations demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/resources/application.yml:38 — This repository versions its schema (Flyway), but Hibernate ddl-auto here builds or alters the schema from the model as well, outside that history — the two paths can disagree about the shape, and a change made this way is never a reviewed migration. Turn it off and let Flyway own the schema.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto outside the migrations demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/resources/application.yml:47 — This repository versions its schema (Flyway), but Hibernate ddl-auto here builds or alters the schema from the model as well, outside that history — the two paths can disagree about the shape, and a change made this way is never a reviewed migration. Turn it off and let Flyway own the schema.
Schema created by Hibernate ddl-auto outside the migrations demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/application.yml:17 — This repository versions its schema (Flyway), but Hibernate ddl-auto here builds or alters the schema from the model as well, outside that history — the two paths can disagree about the shape, and a change made this way is never a reviewed migration. Turn it off and let Flyway own the schema.

AC3 · Page structure · Empty <h1> heading · ×2

Empty <h1> heading demo-session/src/main/resources/templates/index.html:8 — An empty heading appears in the document outline announced with no text. Give the heading text, or remove it if it's decorative.
Empty <h1> heading demo-session/src/main/resources/templates/login.html:8 — An empty heading appears in the document outline announced with no text. Give the heading text, or remove it if it's decorative.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Low contrast colour pair in CSS (2.8 · ×2

Low contrast colour pair in CSS (2.8:1) demo-websocket-socketio/target/classes/static/bootstrap.css:3435 — `.nav-tabs .open .dropdown-toggle, .nav-pills .open .dropdown-toggle, .nav > li.dropdown.open.active > a:hover` sets color: #ffffff on background-color: #999999 — 2.8:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them.
Low contrast colour pair in CSS (2.8:1) demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/resources/static/bootstrap.css:3435 — `.nav-tabs .open .dropdown-toggle, .nav-pills .open .dropdown-toggle, .nav > li.dropdown.open.active > a:hover` sets color: #ffffff on background-color: #999999 — 2.8:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×2

TodoComment demo-ratelimit-redis/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ratelimit/redis/aspect/RateLimiterAspect.java:60 — // TODO: 此时需要考虑局域网多用户访问的情况，因此 key 后续需要加上方法参数更加合理 — 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 demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/service/MonitorService.java:73 — // TODO: 通知被踢出的用户已被当前登录用户踢出， — 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×2

FixmeComment REDACTED:38 — // FIXME: hutool 的 BUG：JSONUtil.toJsonStr() — 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.
FixmeComment REDACTED:59 — // FIXME: hutool 的 BUG：JSONUtil.toJsonStr() — 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.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

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) demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/DelayQueueHandler.java:29 — demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/DelayQueueHandler.java:29-44 | demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/DirectQueueOneHandler.java:37-52 | demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/QueueThreeHandler.java:29-44 | demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/QueueTwoHandler.java:29-44 — 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) demo-template-beetl/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/beetl/controller/IndexController.java:25 — demo-template-beetl/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/beetl/controller/IndexController.java:25-37 | demo-template-enjoy/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/enjoy/controller/IndexController.java:25-37 | demo-template-freemarker/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/freemarker/controller/IndexController.java:25-37 | demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/thymeleaf/controller/IndexController.java:25-37 — 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.

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

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no accessibility linting at author time and no automated accessibility check in tests or CI. Add your UI toolkit's own accessibility assertion to the test suite (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in the pipeline. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 23 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.

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

REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×1

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/DelayQueueHandler.java:31 — demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/DelayQueueHandler.java:31-44 | demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/DirectQueueOneHandler.java:39-52 | demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/QueueThreeHandler.java:31-44 | demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/QueueTwoHandler.java:31-44 — before extracting anything, compare `demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/DirectQueueOneHandler.java` and `demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/handler/QueueThreeHandler.java` as WHOLE FILES: 86% 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. 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 (12 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) demo-template-beetl/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/beetl/controller/IndexController.java:26 — demo-template-beetl/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/beetl/controller/IndexController.java:26-37 | demo-template-enjoy/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/enjoy/controller/IndexController.java:26-37 | demo-template-freemarker/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/freemarker/controller/IndexController.java:26-37 | demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/thymeleaf/controller/IndexController.java:26-37 — before extracting anything, compare `demo-template-enjoy/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/enjoy/controller/IndexController.java` and `demo-template-freemarker/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/freemarker/controller/IndexController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 86% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: `User` names `com.xkcoding.template.beetl.model.User` in one and `com.xkcoding.template.enjoy.model.User` in another — different types that share a simple name, which is why the text matched. A single extracted unit cannot be given a parameter type that fits both, so unifying those types (or introducing a shared abstraction over them) is the step that has to come BEFORE the extraction above; if they are deliberately separate, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 3) demo-email/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/email/service/impl/MailServiceImpl.java:64 — demo-email/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/email/service/impl/MailServiceImpl.java:64-72 | demo-email/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/email/service/impl/MailServiceImpl.java:88-97 | demo-email/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/email/service/impl/MailServiceImpl.java:118-127 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `demo-email/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/email/service/impl/MailServiceImpl.java:98` calls `FileSystemResource`, `File`, `substring` and `demo-email/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/email/service/impl/MailServiceImpl.java:73` 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.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) demo-websocket/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/util/IpUtil.java:114 — demo-websocket/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/util/IpUtil.java:114-123 | demo-websocket/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/util/IpUtil.java:129-138 — 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 transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) demo-task-xxl-job/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/task/xxl/job/controller/ManualOperateController.java:105 — demo-task-xxl-job/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/task/xxl/job/controller/ManualOperateController.java:105-111 | demo-task-xxl-job/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/task/xxl/job/controller/ManualOperateController.java:118-124 | demo-task-xxl-job/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/task/xxl/job/controller/ManualOperateController.java:131-137 — 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. 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 (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) REDACTED:51 — REDACTED:51-56 | REDACTED:71-76 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) demo-websocket/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/util/IpUtil.java:108 — demo-websocket/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/util/IpUtil.java:108-112 | demo-websocket/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/util/IpUtil.java:124-128 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (77 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (77 lines × 2) demo-cache-ehcache/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/impl/UserServiceImpl.java:1 — demo-cache-ehcache/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/impl/UserServiceImpl.java:1-77 | demo-cache-redis/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/service/impl/UserServiceImpl.java:1-77 — before extracting anything, compare `demo-cache-ehcache/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/impl/UserServiceImpl.java` and `demo-cache-redis/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/service/impl/UserServiceImpl.java` as WHOLE FILES: 92% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `demo-cache-ehcache/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/impl/UserServiceImpl.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: `User` names `com.xkcoding.cache.ehcache.entity.User` in one and `com.xkcoding.cache.redis.entity.User` in another — different types that share a simple name, which is why the text matched. A single extracted unit cannot be given a parameter type that fits both, so unifying those types (or introducing a shared abstraction over them) is the step that has to come BEFORE the extraction above; if they are deliberately separate, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (52 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (52 lines × 2) demo-codegen/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/common/R.java:37 — demo-codegen/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/common/R.java:37-88 | demo-rbac-shiro/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/shiro/common/R.java:37-88 — before extracting anything, compare `demo-codegen/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/common/R.java` and `demo-rbac-shiro/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/shiro/common/R.java` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (43 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (43 lines × 2) demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/common/Result.java:35 — demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/common/Result.java:35-77 | demo-ldap/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ldap/api/Result.java:35-77 — before extracting anything, compare `demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/common/Result.java` and `demo-ldap/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ldap/api/Result.java` as WHOLE FILES: 98% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

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

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/exception/ElasticsearchException.java:21 — demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/exception/ElasticsearchException.java:21-45 | demo-ldap/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ldap/exception/ServiceException.java:21-45 — 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: `ResultCode` names `com.xkcoding.elasticsearch.common.ResultCode` in one and `com.xkcoding.ldap.api.ResultCode` in another — different types that share a simple name, which is why the text matched. A single extracted unit cannot be given a parameter type that fits both, so unifying those types (or introducing a shared abstraction over them) is the step that has to come BEFORE the extraction above; if they are deliberately separate, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) demo-exception-handler/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/exception/handler/exception/BaseException.java:21 — demo-exception-handler/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/exception/handler/exception/BaseException.java:21-31 | demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/common/BaseException.java:21-41 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (54 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (54 lines × 2) demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/config/PrimaryDataSourceConfig.java:1 — demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/config/PrimaryDataSourceConfig.java:1-58 | demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/config/SecondDataSourceConfig.java:1-54 — 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 `demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/config/PrimaryDataSourceConfig.java:1` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (93 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (93 lines × 2) demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/config/PrimaryJpaConfig.java:1 — demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/config/PrimaryJpaConfig.java:1-98 | demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/config/SecondJpaConfig.java:1-93 — 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 `demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/config/PrimaryJpaConfig.java:1` 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.

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

Duplicated block (39 lines × 2) demo-ratelimit-guava/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ratelimit/guava/controller/TestController.java:1 — demo-ratelimit-guava/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ratelimit/guava/controller/TestController.java:1-39 | demo-ratelimit-redis/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ratelimit/redis/controller/TestController.java:1-39 — 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 `demo-ratelimit-guava/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ratelimit/guava/controller/TestController.java:1` 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: `RateLimiter` names `com.xkcoding.ratelimit.guava.annotation.RateLimiter` in one and `com.xkcoding.ratelimit.redis.annotation.RateLimiter` in another — different types that share a simple name, which is why the text matched. A single extracted unit cannot be given a parameter type that fits both, so unifying those types (or introducing a shared abstraction over them) is the step that has to come BEFORE the extraction above; if they are deliberately separate, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (88 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (88 lines × 2) demo-swagger-beauty/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/swagger/beauty/controller/UserController.java:1 — demo-swagger-beauty/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/swagger/beauty/controller/UserController.java:1-88 | demo-swagger/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/swagger/controller/UserController.java:1-88 — before extracting anything, compare `demo-swagger-beauty/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/swagger/beauty/controller/UserController.java` and `demo-swagger/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/swagger/controller/UserController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 91% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `demo-swagger-beauty/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/swagger/beauty/controller/UserController.java:1` 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: `ApiResponse` names `com.xkcoding.swagger.beauty.common.ApiResponse` in one and `com.xkcoding.swagger.common.ApiResponse` in another — different types that share a simple name, which is why the text matched. A single extracted unit cannot be given a parameter type that fits both, so unifying those types (or introducing a shared abstraction over them) is the step that has to come BEFORE the extraction above; if they are deliberately separate, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (39 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (39 lines × 4) demo-template-beetl/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/beetl/controller/UserController.java:1 — demo-template-beetl/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/beetl/controller/UserController.java:1-39 | demo-template-enjoy/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/enjoy/controller/UserController.java:1-39 | demo-template-freemarker/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/freemarker/controller/UserController.java:1-39 | demo-template-thymeleaf/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/thymeleaf/controller/UserController.java:1-39 — before extracting anything, compare `demo-template-beetl/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/beetl/controller/UserController.java` and `demo-template-enjoy/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/enjoy/controller/UserController.java` as WHOLE FILES: 87% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `demo-template-beetl/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/template/beetl/controller/UserController.java:1` 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: `User` names `com.xkcoding.template.beetl.model.User` in one and `com.xkcoding.template.enjoy.model.User` in another — different types that share a simple name, which is why the text matched. A single extracted unit cannot be given a parameter type that fits both, so unifying those types (or introducing a shared abstraction over them) is the step that has to come BEFORE the extraction above; if they are deliberately separate, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) demo-cache-redis/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/config/RedisConfig.java:37 — demo-cache-redis/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/config/RedisConfig.java:37-43 | demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/config/RedisConfig.java:32-38 — before extracting anything, compare `demo-cache-redis/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/config/RedisConfig.java` and `demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/config/RedisConfig.java` as WHOLE FILES: 87% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

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

End-of-life framework: Spring Boot 2 REDACTED:1 — REDACTED depends on `org.springframework.boot` at a version that pins Spring Boot 2, and Spring Boot 2.x, open-source support ended 2023-11-24. The constraint cannot admit a different major, so this repository stays on it until the declaration is edited. An end-of-life framework receives no further releases, including security releases.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · Third-party script without Subresource Integrity · ×1

Third-party script without Subresource Integrity demo-oauth/oauth-authorization-server/src/main/resources/templates/common/common.html:29 — `https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/vue@2.x/dist/vue.js` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. 12 such include(s) across the repository's markup.

Minor — 147 finding(s)

D10 · Test Quality · No direct assertions · ×73

No direct assertions: deleteUser demo-cache-ehcache/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/UserServiceTest.java:54 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 4 of 4 tests in `demo-cache-ehcache` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: getAfterSave demo-cache-ehcache/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/UserServiceTest.java:42 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 4 of 4 tests in `demo-cache-ehcache` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: getTwice demo-cache-ehcache/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/UserServiceTest.java:27 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 4 of 4 tests in `demo-cache-ehcache` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: contextLoads demo-cache-ehcache/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/SpringBootDemoCacheEhcacheApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 4 of 4 tests in `demo-cache-ehcache` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: deleteUser demo-cache-redis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/service/UserServiceTest.java:53 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 5 of 5 tests in `demo-cache-redis` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: getAfterSave demo-cache-redis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/service/UserServiceTest.java:41 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 5 of 5 tests in `demo-cache-redis` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: getTwice demo-cache-redis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/service/UserServiceTest.java:26 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 5 of 5 tests in `demo-cache-redis` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: get demo-cache-redis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/RedisTest.java:36 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 5 of 5 tests in `demo-cache-redis` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: contextLoads demo-cache-redis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/SpringBootDemoCacheRedisApplicationTests.java:13 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 5 of 5 tests in `demo-cache-redis` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: advanceAgg demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:161 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: advanceSelect demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:110 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: agg demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:141 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: customAdvanceSelect demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:122 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: customSelectRangeOfAge demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:102 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: delete demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:79 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: save demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:44 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: saveList demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:54 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: select demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:94 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: update demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:67 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testCreateIndex demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/template/TemplateTest.java:25 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testDeleteIndex demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/template/TemplateTest.java:37 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: createIndexTest demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchApplicationTests.java:35 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 6 of 6 tests in `demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: deleteIndexTest demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchApplicationTests.java:27 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 6 of 6 tests in `demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: deleteTest demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchApplicationTests.java:67 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 6 of 6 tests in `demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: insertTest demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchApplicationTests.java:43 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 6 of 6 tests in `demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
+ 48 more in this group — see findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×49

Orphaned file demo-codegen/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/utils/CodeGenUtil.java: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 demo-orm-jdbctemplate/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/orm/jdbctemplate/dao/base/BaseDao.java: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 demo-neo4j/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/neo4j/service/NeoService.java: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 demo-websocket/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/model/Server.java: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 demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/service/base/BaseElasticsearchService.java: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 demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/util/JwtUtil.java: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 demo-log-aop/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/log/aop/aspectj/AopLog.java: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 demo-websocket-socketio/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/socketio/handler/MessageEventHandler.java: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 demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/config/RbacAuthorityService.java: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 demo-websocket/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/websocket/util/IpUtil.java: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 demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/config/RabbitMqConfig.java: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 demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/config/JwtAuthenticationFilter.java: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 demo-task-quartz/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/task/quartz/service/impl/JobServiceImpl.java: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 demo-zookeeper/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/zookeeper/aspectj/ZooLockAspect.java: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 demo-task-xxl-job/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/task/xxl/job/controller/ManualOperateController.java: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 demo-codegen/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/codegen/service/impl/CodeGenServiceImpl.java: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 demo-sharding-jdbc/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/sharding/jdbc/config/DataSourceShardingConfig.java: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 demo-email/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/email/service/impl/MailServiceImpl.java: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 demo-rbac-security/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/rbac/security/exception/handler/GlobalExceptionHandler.java: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 demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/config/ElasticsearchAutoConfiguration.java: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 demo-ratelimit-redis/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/ratelimit/redis/aspect/RateLimiterAspect.java: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 demo-task-quartz/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/task/quartz/controller/JobController.java: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 demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/main/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/config/PrimaryJpaConfig.java: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.
+ 24 more in this group — see findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing · ×11

Test project verifies nothing: demo-cache-ehcache demo-cache-ehcache/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/ehcache/service/UserServiceTest.java:54 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 4 of 4 tests in `demo-cache-ehcache` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-cache-redis demo-cache-redis/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/cache/redis/service/UserServiceTest.java:53 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 5 of 5 tests in `demo-cache-redis` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-elasticsearch demo-elasticsearch/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/repository/PersonRepositoryTest.java:161 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 13 of 13 tests in `demo-elasticsearch` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/elasticsearch/ElasticsearchApplicationTests.java:35 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 6 of 6 tests in `demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-email demo-email/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/email/service/MailServiceTest.java:86 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 7 of 7 tests in `demo-email` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-ldap demo-ldap/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/ldap/LdapDemoApplicationTests.java:29 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 5 of 5 tests in `demo-ldap` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-mongodb demo-mongodb/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/mongodb/repository/ArticleRepositoryTest.java:84 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 9 of 9 tests in `demo-mongodb` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-mq-rabbitmq demo-mq-rabbitmq/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/mq/rabbitmq/SpringBootDemoMqRabbitmqApplicationTests.java:63 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 6 of 6 tests in `demo-mq-rabbitmq` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-multi-datasource-jpa demo-multi-datasource-jpa/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/multi/datasource/jpa/SpringBootDemoMultiDatasourceJpaApplicationTests.java:52 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 4 of 4 tests in `demo-multi-datasource-jpa` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-neo4j demo-neo4j/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/neo4j/Neo4jTest.java:61 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 7 of 7 tests in `demo-neo4j` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.
Test project verifies nothing: demo-sharding-jdbc demo-sharding-jdbc/src/test/java/com/xkcoding/sharding/jdbc/SpringBootDemoShardingJdbcApplicationTests.java:60 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 4 of 4 tests in `demo-sharding-jdbc` — the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 49 of 49 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 49 separate risks. Counted over 49 of the 392 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

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

README/code drift demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/README.md:51 — demo-elasticsearch-rest-high-level-client/README.md runs `docker-compose -f elasticsearch.yaml up -d`, but `elasticsearch.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.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 37/65 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `demo-actuator`, `demo-admin/admin-client`, `demo-admin/admin-server`, `demo-docker`, `demo-elasticsearch` and 23 more.

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

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (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 710 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.)

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-26518ac27ce24b5b9b468c897c81b184/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	11	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-26518ac27ce24b5b9b468c897c81b184/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	2	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 .	21	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	121	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	5	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a16bef-caa2-7b06-8016-de46a0f8ac33 · 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 · 98% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 94% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 76% · Adequate · gated by D34 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 32% · Adequate · gated by D10, D13, P3, P8 ·

At a glance — Security · 65% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29, D30 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 59% · Adequate · gated by DM4, DM7 ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 22% · Weak · gated by AC1, AC2, AC3, AC6 ·

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