Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 06:01 UTC

Dtronix / PDFiumCore

.NET Standard P/Invoke bindings for PDFium.

C#Apache-2.0★ 196 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Sep 2020View on GitHub ↗

Dtronix/PDFiumCore holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (76/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
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.

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

Ownership

DtronixOrganization
9 followers17 public repossince Feb 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetPDFiumCore155.0.8044-1162 days agopinvokedotnetinteroppdfpdfium

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
13.4/18Commit volume — 30 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year30
human_commit_share0.8
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~14.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv155.0.8044.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases14.5

Community & Adoption

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

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.1/60Stars — 196 stars
11.8/25Forks — 27 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks27
stars196
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
62.2/80Total downloads — 965,615 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesPDFiumCore
dependents—
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads965,615
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?

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.988
How it's scored
25.5/42Issue resolution — 61% of issues closed
25.7/30PR acceptance — 6/7 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs6
open_issues11
closed_issues17
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.607
closed_unmerged_prs1
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
7.2/25Owner reach — 9 followers of Dtronix
21.1/25Track record — 17 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers9
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginDtronix
public_repos17
account_age_days3,868

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 116 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesPDFiumCore
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotnet, csharp, pinvoke-wrapper, pdfium, pdf, pdf-document, pdf-generation, pdf-document-processor
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
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
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests. 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.7/40Legible commit history — 22 of 80 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.275
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — src/PDFiumCore.Tests/PDFiumCore.Tests.csproj, src/PDFiumCore/PDFiumCore.csproj, src/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestssrc/PDFiumCore.Tests/PDFiumCore.Tests.csproj, src/PDFiumCore/PDFiumCore.csproj, src/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator.csproj, src/PDFiumCoreDemo/PDFiumCoreDemo.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
50.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/13 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes874,398
source_files_sampled13
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

196GitHub stars
3contributors
30commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
11open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 27 ⇿
0Stars
27Forks
98Releases

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.

0510152025302732020-112023-102026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 06:01 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
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
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
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk16.9.4src/PDFiumCore.Tests/PDFiumCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit3.13.1src/PDFiumCore.Tests/PDFiumCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter3.17.0src/PDFiumCore.Tests/PDFiumCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector3.0.2src/PDFiumCore.Tests/PDFiumCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetPDFiumCore$(Version)src/PDFiumCore.Tests/PDFiumCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetbblanchon.PDFium.Linux$(PDFiumVersion)src/PDFiumCore/PDFiumCore.csproj
NuGetbblanchon.PDFium.macOS$(PDFiumVersion)src/PDFiumCore/PDFiumCore.csproj
NuGetbblanchon.PDFium.Win32$(PDFiumVersion)src/PDFiumCore/PDFiumCore.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub8.0.0src/PDFiumCore/PDFiumCore.csproj
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe6.1.0src/PDFiumCore/PDFiumCore.csproj
NuGetCppSharp1.1.5.3168src/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—src/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator.csproj
NuGetSharpZipLib1.4.2src/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator/PDFiumCoreBindingsGenerator.csproj
NuGetPDFiumCore*src/PDFiumCoreDemo/PDFiumCoreDemo.csproj
NuGetSixLabors.ImageSharp1.0.4src/PDFiumCoreDemo/PDFiumCoreDemo.csproj
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.