Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-05 23:03 UTC

Colectica / cogs

Convention-based Ontology Generation System

C#MIT★ 26 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Jun 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Colectica/cogs holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (63/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ColecticaOrganization · verified domain
8 followers16 public repossince Apr 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
NuGetcogs2.0.778-110 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

63Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
14.4/18Commit volume — 39 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year39
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 8 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 154 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~395.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv1.0.576
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release154
mean_days_between_releases395.6

Community & Adoption

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

47Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
22.7/60Stars — 26 stars
7.5/25Forks — 9 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars26
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51.6/80Total downloads — 92,813 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescogs
dependents—
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads92,813
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.503
How it's scored
37.2/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
12.5/30PR acceptance — 97/233 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs97
open_issues15
closed_issues117
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.886
closed_unmerged_prs136
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
6.9/25Owner reach — 8 followers of Colectica
21/25Track record — 16 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers8
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginColectica
public_repos16
account_age_days5,288

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 11 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescogs
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://cogsdata.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsontology, csharp, metadata, ontology-generation
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://cogsdata.org
docs_sitehttp://cogsdata.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages5
unassessed_packages17
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 5 resolved dependencies against OSV. 17 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
5.9/40Legible commit history — 11 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.11
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes27,670
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCogs.Common/Cogs.Common.csproj, Cogs.Console/Cogs.Console.csproj, Cogs.Dto/Cogs.Dto.csproj, Cogs.Model/Cogs.Model.csproj, Cogs.Publishers/Cogs.Publishers.csproj, Cogs.Tests.Integration/Cogs.Tests.Integration.csproj, Cogs.Tests/Cogs.Tests.csproj, Cogs.Validation/Cogs.Validation.csproj, conformance/dotnet/Cogs.Conformance.RdfGraphComparer/Cogs.Conformance.RdfGraphComparer.csproj, conformance/java/pom.xml, conformance/runtime/csharp/ConformanceRuntimeProbe.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
52.8/55Manageable file sizes — 4/101 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes73,972
source_files_sampled101
oversized_source_files4

Key facts

26GitHub stars
5contributors
39commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
15open 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 ★ / 9 ⇿
0Stars
9Forks
8Releases

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.

035810922017-062021-122026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 8

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-05 23:03 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 3 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 20
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetAngleSharp—Cogs.Common/Cogs.Common.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.CommandLineUtils—Cogs.Console/Cogs.Console.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.PlatformAbstractions—Cogs.Console/Cogs.Console.csproj
NuGetSystem.ComponentModel.Annotations—Cogs.Console/Cogs.Console.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper—Cogs.Dto/Cogs.Dto.csproj
NuGetJsonSchema.Net—Cogs.Publishers/Cogs.Publishers.csproj
NuGetSystem.ComponentModel.Annotations—Cogs.Publishers/Cogs.Publishers.csproj
NuGetYamlDotNet—Cogs.Publishers/Cogs.Publishers.csproj
NuGetdotNetRdf.Core—Cogs.Publishers/Cogs.Publishers.csproj
NuGetJsonSchema.Net—Cogs.Tests.Integration/Cogs.Tests.Integration.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—Cogs.Tests.Integration/Cogs.Tests.Integration.csproj
NuGetxunit—Cogs.Tests.Integration/Cogs.Tests.Integration.csproj
NuGetxunit.analyzers—Cogs.Tests.Integration/Cogs.Tests.Integration.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.console—Cogs.Tests.Integration/Cogs.Tests.Integration.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—Cogs.Tests.Integration/Cogs.Tests.Integration.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—Cogs.Tests/Cogs.Tests.csproj
NuGetNJsonSchema—Cogs.Tests/Cogs.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit—Cogs.Tests/Cogs.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.console—Cogs.Tests/Cogs.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—Cogs.Tests/Cogs.Tests.csproj
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAngleSharp—direct
NuGetCsvHelper—direct
NuGetdotNetRdf.Core—direct
NuGetJsonSchema.Net—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.CommandLineUtils—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.PlatformAbstractions—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—direct
NuGetNJsonSchema—direct
NuGetSystem.ComponentModel.Annotations—direct
NuGetxunit—direct
NuGetxunit.analyzers—direct
NuGetxunit.runner.console—direct
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—direct
NuGetYamlDotNet—direct
Mavennet.sourceforge.owlapi:owlapi-distribution5.5.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin3.7.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin3.14.1indirect
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-nop2.0.11indirect
npmgraphql16.11.0indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPIpydata-sphinx-theme—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 5 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 17 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 — NuGet.