Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-23 00:33 UTC

BookBeat / knightbus

Fast multi-transport messaging framework

C#MIT★ 46 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Oct 2018View on GitHub ↗

BookBeat/knightbus holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (77/100) and lowest on Vitality (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BookBeatOrganization
22 followers15 public repossince Aug 2018

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

39Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence11/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume32 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
0/27Ships releasesno releases published
0/36Release recencyno releases
0/27Release cadenceno releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
26.8/60Stars46 stars
6.5/25Forks7 forks
5.8/15Watchers12 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars46
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges25
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 58% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth19 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled19
top_contributor_share0.576
How it's scored
24/42Issue resolution57% of issues closed
24.9/30PR acceptance145/175 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs145
open_issues3
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.571
closed_unmerged_prs30
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
9.8/25Owner reach22 followers of BookBeat
20.8/25Track record15 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers22
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginBookBeat
public_repos15
account_age_days2,937

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests27 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsservicebus, azure-storage, azure-service-bus, middleware, netstandard, pubsub
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests27 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
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
5.2/7.5Maintained8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. 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_packages47
unassessed_packages1
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 47 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history81 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.81
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapdocumentation/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_filesdocumentation/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifestsknightbus-applicationinsights/src/KnightBus.ApplicationInsights/KnightBus.ApplicationInsights.csproj, knightbus-azureservicebus/src/KnightBus.Azure.ServiceBus.Management/KnightBus.Azure.ServiceBus.Management.csproj, knightbus-azureservicebus/src/KnightBus.Azure.ServiceBus.Messages/KnightBus.Azure.ServiceBus.Messages.csproj, knightbus-azureservicebus/src/KnightBus.Azure.ServiceBus/KnightBus.Azure.ServiceBus.csproj, knightbus-azurestorage/src/KnightBus.Azure.Storage.Management/KnightBus.Azure.Storage.Management.csproj, knightbus-azurestorage/src/KnightBus.Azure.Storage.Messages/KnightBus.Azure.Storage.Messages.csproj, knightbus-azurestorage/src/KnightBus.Azure.Storage/KnightBus.Azure.Storage.csproj, knightbus-azurestorage/tests/KnightBus.Azure.Storage.Tests.Integration/KnightBus.Azure.Storage.Tests.Integration.csproj, knightbus-azurestorage/tests/KnightBus.Azure.Storage.Tests.Unit/KnightBus.Azure.Storage.Tests.Unit.csproj, knightbus-nats/src/KnightBus.Nats.Messages/KnightBus.Nats.Messages.csproj, knightbus-nats/src/KnightBus.Nats/KnightBus.Nats.csproj, knightbus-nats/tests/KnightBus.Nats.Tests.Unit/KnightBus.Nats.Tests.Unit.csproj, knightbus-newrelic/src/KnightBus.NewRelic/KnightBus.NewRelic.csproj, knightbus-newtonsoft/src/KnightBus.Newtonsoft/KnightBus.Newtonsoft.csproj, knightbus-opentelemetry/src/KnightBus.OpenTelemetry/KnightBus.OpenTelemetry.csproj, knightbus-postgresql/src/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Extensions.Azure/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Extensions.Azure.csproj, knightbus-postgresql/src/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Management.Extensions.Azure/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Management.Extensions.Azure.csproj, knightbus-postgresql/src/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Management/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Management.csproj, knightbus-postgresql/src/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Messages/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Messages.csproj, knightbus-postgresql/src/KnightBus.PostgreSql/KnightBus.PostgreSql.csproj, knightbus-postgresql/tests/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Tests.Integration/KnightBus.PostgreSql.Tests.Integration.csproj, knightbus-redis/src/KnightBus.Redis.Management/KnightBus.Redis.Management.csproj, knightbus-redis/src/KnightBus.Redis.Messages/KnightBus.Redis.Messages.csproj, knightbus-redis/src/KnightBus.Redis/KnightBus.Redis.csproj, knightbus-redis/tests/KnightBus.Redis.Tests.Integration/KnightBus.Redis.Tests.Integration.csproj, knightbus-redis/tests/KnightBus.Redis.Tests.Unit/KnightBus.Redis.Tests.Unit.csproj, knightbus-schedule/src/KnightBus.Schedule/KnightBus.Schedule.csproj, knightbus-schedule/tests/KnightBus.Schedule.Tests.Unit/KnightBus.Schedule.Tests.Unit.csproj, knightbus-sqlserver/src/KnightBus.SqlServer/KnightBus.SqlServer.csproj, knightbus-sqlserver/tests/KnightBus.SqlServer.Tests.Integration/KnightBus.SqlServer.Tests.Integration.csproj, knightbus/examples/KnightBus.Examples.Azure.AspireHost/KnightBus.Examples.Azure.AspireHost.csproj, knightbus/examples/KnightBus.Examples.Azure.ServiceBus.Producer/KnightBus.Examples.Azure.ServiceBus.Producer.csproj, knightbus/examples/KnightBus.Examples.Azure.ServiceBus/KnightBus.Examples.Azure.ServiceBus.csproj, knightbus/examples/KnightBus.Examples.Azure.Storage/KnightBus.Examples.Azure.Storage.csproj, knightbus/examples/KnightBus.Examples.Nats/KnightBus.Examples.Nats.csproj, knightbus/examples/KnightBus.Examples.PostgreSql/KnightBus.Examples.PostgreSql.csproj, knightbus/examples/KnightBus.Examples.Redis/KnightBus.Examples.Redis.csproj, knightbus/examples/KnightBus.Examples.Schedule/KnightBus.Examples.Schedule.csproj, knightbus/src/KnightBus.Core.Management/KnightBus.Core.Management.csproj, knightbus/src/KnightBus.Core/KnightBus.Core.csproj, knightbus/src/KnightBus.Host/KnightBus.Host.csproj, knightbus/src/KnightBus.Messages/KnightBus.Messages.csproj, knightbus/tests/KnightBus.Core.Tests.Unit/KnightBus.Core.Tests.Unit.csproj, knightbus/tests/KnightBus.Host.Tests.Unit/KnightBus.Host.Tests.Unit.csproj, knightbus/tests/KnightBus.Shared.Tests.Integration/KnightBus.Shared.Tests.Integration.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/319 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes21,875
source_files_sampled319
oversized_source_files0
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
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

46GitHub stars
19contributors
32commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
3open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 7 ⇿
0Stars
7Forks

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.

1234567712018-112021-122025-02

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-23 00:32 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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
9CI-Tests27 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained8 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 48

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 48 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAspire.Hosting.Azure.ServiceBus13.0.2indirect
NuGetAwesomeAssertions9.3.0indirect
NuGetAzure.Identity1.17.0indirect
NuGetAzure.Identity1.17.1indirect
NuGetAzure.Messaging.ServiceBus7.20.1indirect
NuGetAzure.Storage.Blobs12.27.0indirect
NuGetAzure.Storage.Queues12.25.0indirect
NuGetFluentAssertionsindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.DependencyCollector2.23.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.PerfCounterCollector2.23.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Data.SqlClient6.1.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions9.0.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting9.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting9.0.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions9.0.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.0.1indirect
NuGetMoq4.20.72indirect
NuGetNATS.Client1.1.8indirect
NuGetNewRelic.Agent.Api10.47.0indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4indirect
NuGetNpgsql10.0.1indirect
NuGetNpgsql9.0.4indirect
NuGetNpgsql.DependencyInjection10.0.1indirect
NuGetNpgsql.DependencyInjection9.0.4indirect
NuGetNUnit4.3.2indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter5.0.0indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry1.15.3indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Api1.15.3indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Exporter.Console1.15.3indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol1.15.3indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting1.15.3indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore1.15.2indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http1.15.1indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Process1.15.1-beta.1indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Runtime1.15.1indirect
NuGetQuartz3.15.1indirect
NuGetStackExchange.Redis2.10.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json10.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json9.0.3indirect
NuGetTestcontainers.Azurite4.3.0indirect
NuGetTestcontainers.MsSql4.3.0indirect
NuGetTestcontainers.PostgreSql4.3.0indirect
NuGetTestcontainers.Redis4.3.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 47 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 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 statistics.