Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 09:36 UTC

Aptivi / SpecProbe

Hardware information parser for .NET

C#GPL-3.0★ 6 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2023View on GitHub ↗

Aptivi/SpecProbe holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (38/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
overall / 100
Good

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

65
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AptiviOrganization
9 followers26 public repossince Jul 2022

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetSpecProbe.Loader3.9.1.1-230 days agohardwareinformation
NuGetSpecProbe.Software3.9.1.1-330 days agohardwareinformation
NuGetSpecProbe3.9.1.1-350 days agohardwareinformation

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence28/52 weeks with commits
17.9/18Commit volume98 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year98
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year28
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases35 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~34 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count35
latest_release_tagv3.9.1.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases34

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
11.3/60Stars6 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars6
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
58.3/80Total downloads406,988 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesSpecProbe.Loader, SpecProbe.Software, SpecProbe
dependents
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads406,988
monthly_downloads
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

38Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
7.2/25Owner reach9 followers of Aptivi
18.6/25Track record26 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers9
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginAptivi
public_repos26
account_age_days1,490

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable3 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history35 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesSpecProbe.Loader, SpecProbe.Software, SpecProbe
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows12 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://aptivi.gitbook.io/specprobe-manual
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics15 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscsharp, csharp-library, dotnet, dotnet-core, dotnet-framework, dotnet-standard, hardware, hardware-information, information, libraries, library, probe, prober, spec, specification
has_wikino
homepagehttps://aptivi.gitbook.io/specprobe-manual
docs_sitehttps://aptivi.gitbook.io/specprobe-manual
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
2.2/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
2/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages7
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 7 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://aptivi.gitbook.io/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://aptivi.gitbook.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsprivate/SpecProbe.ConsoleTest/SpecProbe.ConsoleTest.csproj, private/SpecProbe.Tests/SpecProbe.Tests.csproj, public/SpecProbe.Loader/SpecProbe.Loader.csproj, public/SpecProbe.Software/SpecProbe.Software.csproj, public/SpecProbe/SpecProbe.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/95 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes51,229
source_files_sampled95
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

6GitHub stars
1contributors
98commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
35releases
1bus factor
0open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-08-28 09:36 UTC

3Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetTerminaux8.7.0private/SpecProbe.ConsoleTest/SpecProbe.ConsoleTest.csproj
NuGetNSubstitute6.2.0private/SpecProbe.Tests/SpecProbe.Tests.csproj
NuGetNSubstitute.Analyzers.CSharp1.0.17private/SpecProbe.Tests/SpecProbe.Tests.csproj
NuGetShouldly4.3.0private/SpecProbe.Tests/SpecProbe.Tests.csproj
NuGetResourceLab1.0.0public/SpecProbe.Software/SpecProbe.Software.csproj
NuGetSystem.Text.Json10.0.11public/SpecProbe.Software/SpecProbe.Software.csproj
NuGetTextify.Offline2.14.2.2public/SpecProbe/SpecProbe.csproj
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetNSubstitute6.2.0direct
NuGetNSubstitute.Analyzers.CSharp1.0.17direct
NuGetResourceLab1.0.0direct
NuGetShouldly4.3.0direct
NuGetSystem.Text.Json10.0.11direct
NuGetTerminaux8.7.0direct
NuGetTextify.Offline2.14.2.2direct
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 7 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsNuGet.