> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.cloudeval.ai/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Evaluation coverage

> See Cloudeval attributed cloud and IaC check coverage, pinned catalog evidence, and applicability limits.

Cloudeval documents **1,650+ attributed cloud and IaC checks** as a lower bound across pinned scanner catalogs for supported Azure and AWS IaC workflows. Cloudeval adds project modeling, architecture graph context, cost and FinOps context, reviewed scoring, evidence normalization, reports, and release gates around applicable scanner evidence; those product capabilities are not presented as an additional public check count.

<Warning>
  Applicable checks depend on provider, IaC format, resources, project configuration, and enabled policies. Not every project runs every check.
</Warning>

## Summary

| Metric                                                 |               Current public floor |
| ------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------: |
| Attributed cloud and IaC checks across pinned catalogs |                         **1,650+** |
| Azure ARM workflow third-party catalog checks          |                            **743** |
| Azure Bicep workflow third-party catalog checks        |                            **684** |
| AWS CloudFormation workflow third-party catalog checks |                            **460** |
| AWS Terraform workflow third-party catalog checks      |                            **455** |
| Azure Terraform workflow third-party catalog checks    |                            **302** |
| Cost intelligence coverage                             | **Common billable Azure services** |
| Architecture graph intelligence                        |                       **Included** |

Workflow counts overlap and must not be added together. Use `1,650+ attributed cloud and IaC checks` as the stable public lower bound, then apply the provider, format, resource, project, and policy qualifiers.

## How signals become report output

```mermaid theme={null}
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"nodeSpacing": 40, "rankSpacing": 52, "curve": "basis"}, "themeVariables": {"fontSize": "16px"}}}%%
flowchart LR
  source["Project inputs"]:::input --> platform["Cloudeval platform<br/>model graph cost scoring"]:::platform
  scanners["Attributed third-party<br/>observations"]:::catalog --> normalize["Normalize<br/>deduplicate<br/>apply scope"]:::normalize
  platform --> normalize
  normalize --> scored["Reviewed scoring"]:::scored
  normalize --> quality["Deployment quality"]:::quality
  normalize --> findings["Additional IaC findings"]:::findings
  normalize --> notAssessed["Not assessed"]:::muted

  scored --> report["Cloud Evaluation report"]:::output
  quality --> report
  findings --> report
  notAssessed --> report

  classDef input fill:#E0F2FE,stroke:#0284C7,color:#082F49,stroke-width:2px;
  classDef platform fill:#DCFCE7,stroke:#16A34A,color:#14532D,stroke-width:2px;
  classDef catalog fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#D97706,color:#451A03,stroke-width:2px;
  classDef normalize fill:#CCFBF1,stroke:#0F766E,color:#134E4A,stroke-width:3px;
  classDef scored fill:#DCFCE7,stroke:#16A34A,color:#14532D,stroke-width:2px;
  classDef quality fill:#FCE7F3,stroke:#DB2777,color:#831843,stroke-width:2px;
  classDef findings fill:#F3E8FF,stroke:#9333EA,color:#581C87,stroke-width:2px;
  classDef muted fill:#E5E7EB,stroke:#6B7280,color:#374151,stroke-width:2px;
  classDef output fill:#111827,stroke:#111827,color:#FFFFFF,stroke-width:3px;
```

## What the counts mean

| Count                                    | Meaning                                                                                                                                                        |
| ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `1,650+ attributed cloud and IaC checks` | The published lower-bound count across pinned scanner catalogs before project applicability, reviewed treatment, normalization, and deduplication are applied. |
| Workflow counts                          | Views into attributed third-party catalogs for a provider and IaC format. These overlap.                                                                       |
| Findings                                 | Project-specific observations that appear only when the project has matching resources, files, configuration, and enabled policies.                            |
| `Not assessed`                           | A clear status for unsupported or out-of-scope provider, format, resource, or policy areas.                                                                    |

## Category breakdown

| Category                        | Current treatment                                                                               |
| ------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Azure architecture review       | Reviewed Azure architecture mappings from supported Azure workflows.                            |
| AWS architecture review         | Beta treatment for reviewed AWS CloudFormation controls where mapped.                           |
| Deployment quality              | ARM TTK and cfn-lint observations, plus Cloudeval deployment-readiness checks where applicable. |
| Additional IaC findings         | Checkov observations for supported IaC formats.                                                 |
| Cost intelligence               | Estimates and recommendations for common billable Azure services.                               |
| Architecture graph intelligence | Graph context used to reason about topology and review context.                                 |
| Diagram integrity               | Checks that keep generated diagrams parseable and reviewable.                                   |

## Evaluation timing

For a normal-sized template project, the first architecture view is typically
ready in seconds. Reports and findings take longer because they evaluate more of
the project. Eligible evaluations can run at the same time, so the values below
are readiness windows for each stage, not steps in a serial pipeline.

| Stage                       | Typical readiness (p50) | Most ready by (p95) |
| --------------------------- | ----------------------: | ------------------: |
| Architecture diagram        |              12 seconds |         102 seconds |
| Initial reports             |              65 seconds |         131 seconds |
| Security findings           |              75 seconds |         162 seconds |
| Cost analysis               |              29 seconds |          62 seconds |
| Repository import           |              78 seconds |         152 seconds |
| Unit tests, when configured |              39 seconds |          87 seconds |

The charts compare each stage from a common starting point. They are visual
estimates for a normal-sized template project, not a fixed execution sequence.

### Typical readiness (p50)

Half of observed runs reached each stage within the time shown below.

```mermaid theme={null}
%%{init: {"gantt": {"barHeight": 28, "barGap": 8, "topPadding": 52}, "themeVariables": {"fontSize": "14px", "taskBkgColor": "#14B8A6", "taskBorderColor": "#0F766E", "taskTextColor": "#042F2E", "taskTextOutsideColor": "#134E4A", "sectionBkgColor": "#F0FDFA", "altSectionBkgColor": "#CCFBF1", "gridColor": "#99F6E4", "todayLineColor": "#0F766E"}}}%%
gantt
  title Typical template-project readiness (p50)
  dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss
  axisFormat %M:%S

  section p50 readiness
  Architecture diagram - 12 sec       :p50_architecture, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 12s
  Cost analysis - 29 sec              :p50_cost, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 29s
  Unit tests when configured - 39 sec :p50_tests, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 39s
  Initial reports - 65 sec            :p50_reports, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 65s
  Security findings - 75 sec          :p50_security, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 75s
  Repository import - 78 sec          :p50_import, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 78s
```

### Most ready by (p95)

Ninety-five percent of observed runs reached each stage within the time shown
below.

```mermaid theme={null}
%%{init: {"gantt": {"barHeight": 28, "barGap": 8, "topPadding": 52}, "themeVariables": {"fontSize": "14px", "taskBkgColor": "#F59E0B", "taskBorderColor": "#B45309", "taskTextColor": "#451A03", "taskTextOutsideColor": "#78350F", "sectionBkgColor": "#FFFBEB", "altSectionBkgColor": "#FEF3C7", "gridColor": "#FDE68A", "todayLineColor": "#B45309"}}}%%
gantt
  title Longer template-project readiness window (p95)
  dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss
  axisFormat %M:%S

  section p95 readiness
  Cost analysis - 62 sec               :p95_cost, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 62s
  Unit tests when configured - 87 sec  :p95_tests, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 87s
  Architecture diagram - 102 sec       :p95_architecture, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 102s
  Initial reports - 131 sec            :p95_reports, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 131s
  Repository import - 152 sec          :p95_import, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 152s
  Security findings - 162 sec          :p95_security, 2026-01-01 00:00:00, 162s
```

<Note>
  These figures are indicative observations, not an SLA. Timing varies with
  template size, repository complexity, enabled evaluations, and current
  demand. Optional stages appear only when they are configured for the project.
</Note>

## Coverage boundaries

* The `1,650+ attributed cloud and IaC checks` count is a lower bound across pinned scanner catalogs, not a promise about per-project output.
* Not every project runs every check.
* Workflow-specific third-party counts overlap.
* AWS CloudFormation support is beta and is not an end-to-end AWS Well-Architected assessment.
* Checkov observations appear as additional IaC findings unless Cloudeval has reviewed a different output treatment.
* Third-party projects are independent; no affiliation, certification, sponsorship, or approval is implied.

## Related pages

* [Evaluation methodology and attribution](/trust/evaluation-methodology)
* [Cloud and IaC support](/trust/supported-clouds-and-iac)
* [Feature matrix](/trust/feature-availability)
* [Report types and statuses](/reference/report-types-and-states)
* [Review report findings](/guides/review/findings)