Executive summary
Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.
zkavtaskin/Domain-Driven-Design-Example is in good health (73%). It can be evolved and depended on with normal engineering discipline; the items below are improvements, not blockers.
It is strongest in Code Health (96%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Architecture (95%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Domain Modelling (66%) — the domain model leaks and drifts, so business rules are harder to trust and change.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Keep the changelog current (Release Hygiene); strongly-typed ids across the domain (Strongly-typed ids); Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately (Folder & project structure).
For scale: Small (~3,159 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Code Health foundation (96%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
96% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
95% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
73% ★
Exemplary
Readiness
73%
Fair · gated by P6
Security
89% ★
Exemplary
Domain Modelling
66%
Fair · gated by DM2
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 5%Plumbing 76%Tests 19%
New since the last scan (2+)
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,500–€7,100
| Cost to rebuild | €1,500–€7,100 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 1.1× (at 73% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 62% boilerplate · 32% straight-line · 6% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€4,300 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Domain Modelling at 66% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.
2
Resolve the 4 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CreditCardTest.cs (3), CartController.cs.
3
Resolve the 2 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with eCommerce.WebService.csproj, eCommerce.csproj.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub. The rest can wait behind it.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+5.6 pts/run over 5 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityDomain Modelling
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.9
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
9.9
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
8.7
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
7.3
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D22 · .NET / C#
Internal API Consistency
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
9.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
The Ugly
Roadmap
First, maintain release hygiene by ensuring every release includes a current changelog entry. Next, improve code safety by adopting strongly-typed identifiers across the domain to prevent common bugs. Then, reorganize the project structure by grouping production code under a src/ directory to separate it from tooling. Finally, update the root README with a quick-start section to help new contributors understand how to build and run the project.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub. | +2.9 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Resolve the 4 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CreditCardTest.cs (3), CartController.cs. | +1.1 pts | Low | Comment Value |
| Resolve the 2 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with eCommerce.WebService.csproj, eCommerce.csproj. | +1.0 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs. | +1.7 pts | Medium | Strongly-typed ids |
| Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. | +1.7 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. | +1.7 pts | Medium | Cryptographic Hygiene |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +1.4 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id, never by object reference, so each aggregate stays an independent consistency boundary. | +1.3 pts | Medium | Aggregate boundaries |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| eCommerce.Tests/DomainModelLayer/CustomerTest.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: ChangeEmail_PassedSameEmailAddress_DoesNotThrowEventRaisedException |
| eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Carts/ProductRemovedCart.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) |
| eCommerce.WebService/eCommerce.WebService.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: eCommerce.WebService |
| eCommerce/eCommerce.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: eCommerce |
| eCommerce.Tests/DomainModelLayer/CreditCardTest.cs | 9.1 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
| eCommerce.WebService/Controllers/CartController.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
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. 40 of 43 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 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 43 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D15D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D28D29D35AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8GD1IC1M1M3M4P6S1X1X3X4
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, 11 of 35 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- 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.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- 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
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
1 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2)eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Carts/ProductRemovedCart.cs:14
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
3 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: eCommerce
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 21 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
26 test methods: 26 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 26 tests.
No assertions: ChangeEmail_PassedSameEmailAddress_DoesNotThrowEventRaisedExceptioneCommerce.Tests/DomainModelLayer/CustomerTest.cs:85
Mock framework: Moq
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with CustomerTest.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 2876 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
3 projects, 121 .cs files, 3637 hand-written lines of code (2876 production / 761 test), 2 inter-project edges (build failed).
Build did not complete in the analyzer
eCommerce.WebService (Production)eCommerce.WebService/eCommerce.WebService.csproj
eCommerce.Tests (Test)eCommerce.Tests/eCommerce.Tests.csproj
eCommerce (Production)eCommerce/eCommerce.csproj
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The project lacks architectural documentation and has zero XML documentation coverage, indicating a significant gap in technical guidance for developers. The README is minimal, containing only a high-level objective and links to external blog posts, with no internal setup instructions, build steps, or contribution guidelines.
Low XML-doc coverage: eCommerce.WebService eCommerce.WebService/eCommerce.WebService.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with eCommerce.WebService.csproj, eCommerce.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API Consistency
No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.
No exposed public API
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
4 valuable / 45 redundant across 97 sampled comments; 4 shown with locations.
redundant comment eCommerce.Tests/DomainModelLayer/CreditCardTest.cs:30
What to do
- Resolve the 4 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CreditCardTest.cs (3), CartController.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 3 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
- `Product` references the aggregate root `ProductCode` directly (via `Code`) — hold its `ProductCodeId` instead. — Product.cs:22
- `CountryTax` references the aggregate root `Country` directly (via `Country`) — hold its `CountryId` instead. — CountryTax.cs:13
What to do
- Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id, never by object reference, so each aggregate stays an independent consistency boundary.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM2 · Strongly-typed ids
- `Cart.CustomerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CustomerId { Guid Value }`). — Cart.cs:22
- `Customer.CountryId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CountryId { Guid Value }`). — Customer.cs:24
- `Purchase.CustomerId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CustomerId { Guid Value }`). — Purchase.cs:22
What to do
- Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM7 · Repository granularity
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — StubDataCustomerRepository.cs:58
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `GetCustomersPurchaseHistory` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — StubDataCustomerRepository.cs:54
What to do
- Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add a README to the 3 of 3 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- The README claims the project structure includes 'Domain Area' subdirectories within ApplicationLayer and DomainModelLayer, but the evidence shows only the top-level layer folders (ApplicationLayer, DomainModelLayer, etc.) without the specific 'Domain Area' subdirectories.
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: The README claims the project structure includes 'Domain Area' subdirectories within ApplicationLayer and DomainModelLayer, but the evidence shows only the top-level layer folders (ApplicationLayer, DomainModelLayer, etc.) without the specific 'Domain Area' subdirectories..
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- A changelog exists but has few versioned entries — keep it current with each release.
What to do
- Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.
- Stamp a version (csproj <Version>, a VERSION file, or GitVersion) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Cryptographic Hygiene
- MD5/SHA1 is broken for security purposes (collision-vulnerable). Use SHA-256+ for content integrity; for password storage, use a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt). — W3CWebRequestCorrelationIdentifier.cs:32
What to do
- Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 96% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 95% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 73% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Readiness | 73% | Fair — gated by P6 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 89% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Domain Modelling | 66% | Fair — gated by DM2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 55 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- C1 Data Protection — This is a dotnet-new template — at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
- C2 Access Controls — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
- C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
- D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
- D14 License Compliance — License scan unavailable
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- 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.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — With only 2,876 lines of code across three projects, the codebase is too small to warrant explicit bounded context declarations.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — REDACTED
- D31 IaC & Container Security — REDACTED
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — REDACTED
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — REDACTED
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — REDACTED
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — REDACTED
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — REDACTED
- D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- 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.
- P1 CI/CD gates — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Automated CI/CD gates are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
- P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 1 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- No assertions: ChangeEmail_PassedSameEmailAddress_DoesNotThrowEventRaisedException eCommerce.Tests/DomainModelLayer/CustomerTest.cs:85
Warning — 6 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Low XML-doc coverage: eCommerce.WebService eCommerce.WebService/eCommerce.WebService.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: eCommerce eCommerce/eCommerce.csproj
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Carts/ProductRemovedCart.cs:14
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: eCommerce
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 18 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment eCommerce.Tests/DomainModelLayer/CreditCardTest.cs:30
- redundant comment eCommerce.Tests/DomainModelLayer/CreditCardTest.cs:34
- redundant comment eCommerce.Tests/DomainModelLayer/CreditCardTest.cs:21
- redundant comment eCommerce.WebService/Controllers/CartController.cs:37
D11 · Test Reliability
- No tests discovered
D14 · License Compliance
- License scan unavailable
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- With only 2,876 lines of code across three projects, the codebase is too small to warrant explicit bounded context declarations.
D25 · ADR Conformance
- no ADRs to check
D27 · Navigability
- Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- REDACTED
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)
- REDACTED
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
- REDACTED
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
D7 · Architectural Integrity
- No checkable ADRs to assess
Info — 10 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: Moq
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build did not complete in the analyzer
D18 · Solution Shape
- eCommerce.WebService (Production) eCommerce.WebService/eCommerce.WebService.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- eCommerce.Tests (Test) eCommerce.Tests/eCommerce.Tests.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- eCommerce (Production) eCommerce/eCommerce.csproj
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D9 · Test Distribution
- Unit tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- Integration tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- BDD tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- E2E tests
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Name — 8 field(s)
- CustomerDto.FirstName eCommerce/ApplicationLayer/Customers/CustomerDto.cs:11
- CustomerDto.LastName eCommerce/ApplicationLayer/Customers/CustomerDto.cs:12
- CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.FirstName eCommerce/ApplicationLayer/Customers/CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.cs:11
- CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.LastName eCommerce/ApplicationLayer/Customers/CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.cs:12
- Customer.FirstName eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/Customer.cs:19
- Customer.LastName eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/Customer.cs:20
- CustomerPurchaseHistoryReadModel.FirstName eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/CustomerPurchaseHistoryReadModel.cs:11
- CustomerPurchaseHistoryReadModel.LastName eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/CustomerPurchaseHistoryReadModel.cs:12
Email — 7 field(s)
- CustomerDto.Email eCommerce/ApplicationLayer/Customers/CustomerDto.cs:13
- CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.Email eCommerce/ApplicationLayer/Customers/CustomerPurchaseHistoryDto.cs:13
- Customer.Email eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/Customer.cs:21
- CustomerAlreadyRegisteredSpec.email eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/CustomerAlreadyRegisteredSpec.cs:13
- CustomerCheckedOutHandle.emailDispatcher eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/CustomerCheckedOutHandle.cs:12
- CustomerCheckedOutHandle.emailGenerator eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/CustomerCheckedOutHandle.cs:13
- CustomerCreatedHandle.emailDispatcher eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/CustomerCreatedHandle.cs:15
Financial (card / IBAN) — 5 field(s)
- CreditCardDto.CardNumber eCommerce/ApplicationLayer/Customers/CreditCardDto.cs:12
- CreditCard.CardNumber eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/CreditCard.cs:12
- CreditCardAdded.CreditCard eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/CreditCardAdded.cs:11
- Customer.creditCards eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/Customer.cs:16
- Customer.CreditCards eCommerce/DomainModelLayer/Customers/Customer.cs:26