Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 14:40 UTC

D-WIS / DDHub-Semantic-Interoperability

Repo for the DDHub semantic interoperability framework. Contains the semantical model, use cases, examples and reference implementation code.

C#Apache-2.0★ 9 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2021View on GitHub ↗

D-WIS/DDHub-Semantic-Interoperability holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Security (58/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (35/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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.

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)

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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

D-WISOrganization

19 followers23 public repossince Dec 2020

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?

41Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

67Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.2/36	Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
15.4/18	Commit volume — 51 commits in the last year
9/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

commits_last_year	51
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	9

Release discipline

1Critical

How it's scored

0/27	Ships releases — no releases published
0/36	Release recency — no releases
0/27	Release cadence — no releases
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count

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?

35Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

21At Risk

How it's scored

14.6/60	Stars — 9 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
6/15	Watchers — 13 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	9
watchers	13
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

46Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

34At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 54% of commits
8.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	6
top_contributor_share	0.536

Issue & PR responsiveness

45Weak

How it's scored

9.1/42	Issue resolution — 22% of issues closed
30/30	PR acceptance — 6/6 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	6
open_issues	18
closed_issues	5
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.217
closed_unmerged_prs	0
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

61Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
9.4/25	Owner reach — 19 followers of D-WIS
21.8/25	Track record — 23 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	19
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	D-WIS
public_repos	23
account_age_days	2,146

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

47Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
6.8/7.5	Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	4.7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	23
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 23 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — 0 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

24At Risk

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.RenameNounsInExamples/DWIS.RenameNounsInExamples.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.StandardSet.UQ/DWIS.StandardSet.UQ.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.TestApp/DWIS.TestApp.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.RenameNounsInExamples/DWIS.RenameNounsInExamples.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.StandardSet.UQ/DWIS.StandardSet.UQ.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.TestApp/DWIS.TestApp.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.Vocabulary.Controls/DWIS.Vocabulary.Controls.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.Vocabulary.Development.App/Client/DWIS.Vocabulary.Development.App.Client.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.Vocabulary.Development.App/Server/DWIS.Vocabulary.Development.App.Server.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.Vocabulary.Development.App/Shared/DWIS.Vocabulary.Development.App.Shared.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.Vocabulary.InstanceEdition/DWIS.Vocabulary.InstanceEdition.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.Vocabulary.Schemas/DWIS.Vocabulary.Schemas.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS.Vocabulary.Standard/DWIS.Vocabulary.Standard.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWISVocabulary.OWL/DWIS.Vocabulary.OWL.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWISVocabularyDevelopment.Actions/DWIS.Vocabulary.Development.Actions.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWISVocabularyDevelopment/DWIS.Vocabulary.Development.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/VocabularyParseTest/DWIS.Vocabulary.Parse.Test.csproj, src/DWIS-Vocabulary/DWIS-Vocabulary/VocabularyUtils/DWIS.Vocabulary.Utils.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

95Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
49.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 7/74 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C#
largest_source_bytes	1,134,390
source_files_sampled	74
oversized_source_files	7

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

9GitHub stars

6contributors

51commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

0releases

1bus factor

18open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10

4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 14:39 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
9	Maintained	9 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 23

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 23 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
NuGet	AutomaticGraphLayout	`1.1.12`	indirect
NuGet	Blazorade.Mermaid	`1.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	BlazorMonaco	`3.2.0`	indirect
NuGet	EPPlus	`7.1.1`	indirect
NuGet	MermaidJS.Blazor	`2.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.Web	`8.0.2`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly	`6.0.10`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly.DevServer	`6.0.10`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly.Server	`6.0.10`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebView.WindowsForms	`8.0.7`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration	`8.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection	`6.0.2-mauipre.1.22054.8`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting	`6.0.2-mauipre.1.22054.8`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging	`7.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	MudBlazor	`6.16.0`	indirect
NuGet	MudBlazor	`6.2.1-dev1`	indirect
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`13.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Octokit	`4.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	OSDC.DotnetLibraries.General.Common	`1.1.1`	indirect
NuGet	OSDC.UnitConversion.Conversion.DrillingEngineering	`3.3.25`	indirect
NuGet	RDFSharp	`3.4.4`	indirect
NuGet	RDFSharp.Semantics	`3.4.4`	indirect
NuGet	Z.Blazor.Diagrams	`3.0.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 23 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.

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.