Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 12:23 UTC

ArtifexSoftware / MuPDF.NET

C# bindings for MuPDF

C#Custom license★ 108 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Feb 2024View on GitHub ↗

ArtifexSoftware/MuPDF.NET holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (44/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account 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

Artifex SoftwareOrganization
283 followers54 public repossince Jun 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetMuPDF.Fonts1.0.4-1107 days agomupdfpymupdffonts

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence29/52 weeks with commits
17.7/18Commit volume93 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained23 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year93
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year29
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases2 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 64 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~520 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagMuPDF.NET-3.28.0_PDF4LLM-1.28.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release64
mean_days_between_releases520
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.9/60Stars108 stars
9.8/25Forks16 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks16
stars108
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 43% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.427
How it's scored
40.1/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance81/86 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 7/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs81
open_issues3
closed_issues64
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.955
closed_unmerged_prs5
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.6/25Owner reach283 followers of ArtifexSoftware
24.7/25Track record54 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers283
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginArtifexSoftware
public_repos54
account_age_days4,104
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 107 days ago
4/20Version history1 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesMuPDF.Fonts
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish107

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://mupdfnet.readthedocs.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotnet, mupdf, pdf
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://mupdfnet.readthedocs.io/
docs_sitehttps://mupdfnet.readthedocs.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 7/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained23 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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_packages29
unassessed_packages22
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 29 resolved dependencies against OSV. 22 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt present
18.1/40Legible commit history34 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.34
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapDemo/Demo.csproj, Examples/AdvancedToc/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/Anonymize/CSharp/CSharp.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated 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-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsDemo/Demo.csproj, Examples/AdvancedToc/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/Anonymize/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/Attach/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/Combine/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/ConvertDoc/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/ConvertText/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/CopyEmbedded/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/DrawCardioid/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/DrawCaustic/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/DrawFractal/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/DrawPolygon/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/Drawing/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/EmbedImages/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/ExportEmbed/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/ExtractImages/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/ExtractXObj/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/Fields/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/ImportToc/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/InsertImages/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/InsertLogo/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/JoinDoc/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/ListEmbedded/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/OCR/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/PosterizeDoc/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/PrintHSV/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/PrintPageFormat/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/PrintRGB/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/ReplaceImage/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/SplitDoc/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/StoryRendering/StoryRender/StoryRender.csproj, Examples/TextboxExtraction/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/Textwriter/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/TileImage/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/WordMarking/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, Examples/ZerofyRotation/CSharp/CSharp.csproj, MuPDF.Fonts/MuPDF.Fonts.csproj, MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test.csproj, MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj, MuPDF.NET.Test/MuPDF.NET.Test.csproj, MuPDF.NET/Barcode/Decoders/Decoders.csproj, MuPDF.NET/MuPDF.NET.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
50.7/55Manageable file sizes64/826 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes9,044,921
source_files_sampled826
oversized_source_files64
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, samples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

108GitHub stars
5contributors
93commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
2bus factor
3open issues
NuGet, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 16 ⇿
0Stars
16Forks
1Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

04812161622024-032025-052026-06
Major 0Minor 1Patch 0

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 12:20 UTC

0Binary-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
0CI-Tests0 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 7/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained23 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 30
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetSharpCompress*MuPDF.Fonts/MuPDF.Fonts.csproj
NuGetRapidOcrNet2.0.0MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.*MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test.csproj
NuGetxunit2.*MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.*MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.*MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test.csproj
NuGetMuPDF.NET.Office$(ArtifexMuPDFNetOfficeVersion)MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test.csproj
NuGetMuPDF.NET.Office.NativeAssets$(ArtifexMuPDFNetOfficeVersion)MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.Test.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.ML.OnnxRuntime1.20.1MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.ML.OnnxRuntime1.24.3MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj
NuGetMarkdig0.38.0MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj
NuGetAzure.AI.OpenAI2.1.0MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj
NuGetAzure.Search.Documents11.6.0MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AI10.3.0MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AI.OpenAI10.3.0MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj
NuGetRapidOcrNet2.0.0MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM/MuPDF.NET.PDF4LLM.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.*MuPDF.NET.Test/MuPDF.NET.Test.csproj
NuGetSharpZipLib1.4.2MuPDF.NET.Test/MuPDF.NET.Test.csproj
NuGetxunit2.*MuPDF.NET.Test/MuPDF.NET.Test.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.*MuPDF.NET.Test/MuPDF.NET.Test.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.*MuPDF.NET.Test/MuPDF.NET.Test.csproj
NuGetSystem.IO.Compression4.3.0MuPDF.NET/MuPDF.NET.csproj
NuGetSystem.Text.Json6.0.10MuPDF.NET/MuPDF.NET.csproj
NuGetSystem.Text.Json8.0.5MuPDF.NET/MuPDF.NET.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0MuPDF.NET/MuPDF.NET.csproj
NuGetMuPDF.NativeAssets$(ArtifexMuPDFVersion)MuPDF.NET/MuPDF.NET.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4MuPDF.NET/MuPDF.NET.csproj
NuGetSharpZipLib1.4.2MuPDF.NET/MuPDF.NET.csproj
NuGetSkiaSharp3.119.4MuPDF.NET/MuPDF.NET.csproj
All dependencies 51

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 31 direct and 20 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAzure.AI.OpenAIdirect
NuGetAzure.AI.OpenAI2.1.0direct
NuGetAzure.Search.Documentsdirect
NuGetAzure.Search.Documents11.6.0direct
NuGetcoverlet.collectordirect
NuGetMarkdigdirect
NuGetMarkdig0.38.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AIdirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AI10.3.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AI.OpenAIdirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AI.OpenAI10.3.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.ML.OnnxRuntimedirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ML.OnnxRuntime1.20.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.ML.OnnxRuntime1.24.3direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdkdirect
NuGetMuPDF.NativeAssetsdirect
NuGetMuPDF.NET.Officedirect
NuGetMuPDF.NET.Office.NativeAssetsdirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4direct
NuGetRapidOcrNetdirect
NuGetRapidOcrNet2.0.0direct
NuGetSharpCompressdirect
NuGetSharpZipLib1.4.2direct
NuGetSkiaSharp3.119.4direct
NuGetSystem.IO.Compression4.3.0direct
NuGetSystem.Text.Json6.0.10direct
NuGetSystem.Text.Json8.0.5direct
NuGetxunitdirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudiodirect
NuGetMuPDF.Fonts1.0.4indirect
NuGetMuPDF.NETindirect
NuGetMuPDF.NET2.0.10-alphaindirect
NuGetMuPDF.NET2.0.11-alphaindirect
NuGetMuPDF.NET2.0.12-alphaindirect
NuGetMuPDF.NET2.0.7-alphaindirect
NuGetMuPDF.NET2.0.8-alphaindirect
NuGetMuPDF.NET2.0.9-alphaindirect
NuGetMuPDF.NET3.2.9-rc.1indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux3.119.4indirect
PyPIfuroindirect
PyPIpymupdf1.28.2indirect
PyPIpymupdf-layout1.28.2indirect
PyPIreadthedocs-sphinx-search0.3.2indirect
PyPIrst2pdfindirect
PyPIsphinx5.3.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybuttonindirect
PyPIsphinx-notfound-pageindirect
PyPIsphinx-tabsindirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-googleanalyticsindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 29 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 22 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.