Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-31 16:46 UTC

Digbyswift / Digbyswift.Core

C#MIT★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Sep 2021View on GitHub ↗

Digbyswift/Digbyswift.Core holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (59/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (32/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

DigbyswiftOrganization
0 followers23 public repossince Nov 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetDigbyswift.Core2.7.3-280 days agoc#extensionsutility

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

58Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
14.1/18Commit volume36 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year36
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases10 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 382 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~84.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tag2.5.3
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release382
mean_days_between_releases84.5
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?

32At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars2 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers1
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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
46.7/80Total downloads31,452 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesDigbyswift.Core
dependents
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads31,452
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 73% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.727
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
28/30PR acceptance14/15 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs14
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
0/25Owner reach0 followers of Digbyswift
15.5/25Track record23 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginDigbyswift
public_repos23
account_age_days987
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history28 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesDigbyswift.Core
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
7.5/7.5Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
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-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
7.5/40Legible commit history14 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.14
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapsrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj, src/Digbyswift.Core/Digbyswift.Core.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackages.lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestssrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj, src/Digbyswift.Core/Digbyswift.Core.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/84 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes23,605
source_files_sampled84
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
3contributors
36commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
10releases
1bus factor
0open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-31 16:45 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 1/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetcoverlet.collectorsrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj
NuGetNSubstitutesrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj
NuGetNSubstitute.Analyzers.CSharpsrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnitsrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit.Analyzerssrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdaptersrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdksrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Metadatasrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSourcesrc/Digbyswift.Core.Tests/Digbyswift.Core.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractionssrc/Digbyswift.Core/Digbyswift.Core.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Net.Http.Headerssrc/Digbyswift.Core/Digbyswift.Core.csproj
NuGetNager.PublicSuffixsrc/Digbyswift.Core/Digbyswift.Core.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Jsonsrc/Digbyswift.Core/Digbyswift.Core.csproj
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetcoverlet.collectordirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractionsdirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Net.Http.Headersdirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdkdirect
NuGetNager.PublicSuffixdirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Jsondirect
NuGetNSubstitutedirect
NuGetNSubstitute.Analyzers.CSharpdirect
NuGetNUnitdirect
NuGetNUnit.Analyzersdirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapterdirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSourcedirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Metadatadirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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