# FastReports/FastReport — health index 77/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository FastReports/FastReport by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/FastReports/FastReport
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/FastReports/FastReport
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/FastReports/FastReport/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/f/FastReports/FastReport.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-03
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 65/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 88/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 82/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 30/100 | At Risk |
| Security | 16% | 66/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 53/100 | Moderate |

The weighted overall 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Free Open Source Reporting tool for .NET6/.NET Core/.NET Framework that helps your application generate document-like reports |
| Classification | library |
| Homepage | https://www.fast-report.com |
| Primary language | C# |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 3,086 |
| Forks | 678 |
| Created | 2018-10-25 |
| Last push | 2026-08-31 |
| Latest release | v2026.2.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 30 |
| Bus factor | 3 |
| Topics | report, csharp, dotnet, report-generator, fastreport, dotnet-core, reporting-engine, reporting, reporting-tool, opensource, dotnet5, dotnet6, dotnetcore, pdf, pdf-generation |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| nuget | FastReport.OpenSource | 2026.2.7 | — |
| nuget | FastReport.OpenSource.Web | 2026.2.7 | — |

## Vitality — 65/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 3 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 9.7 / 36 | 14/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 13.4 / 18 | 30 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 5 / 10 | 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5 |

### Release discipline — 67/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 35 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 27 / 36 | latest release 148 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 12.6 / 27 | a release every ~124.5 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 3 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 88/100 (Excellent)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 56.6 / 60 | 3,086 stars |
| Forks | partial | 23.6 / 25 | 678 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 11.7 / 15 | 128 watchers |

### Community health — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 85/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total downloads | partial | 68.2 / 80 | 3,694,367 downloads all-time across nuget |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 82/100 (Excellent)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 73/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 36 / 54 | 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 17.1 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 24% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 15 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 6 / 10 | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 92/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 40.7 / 42 | 97% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 24.5 / 30 | 265/325 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 67/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 15.1 / 25 | 126 followers of FastReports |
| Track record | partial | 22.1 / 25 | 23 public repos, account ~14 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 2 package(s) on nuget |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 0 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 169 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 30/100 (At Risk)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 6/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 65/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://www.fast-report.com |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 15 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 66/100 (Good)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 57/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | 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 |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | partial | 1.5 / 2.5 | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 5 | no dependencies found |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | partial | 2 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 32 resolved dependencies against OSV; 94 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 53/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 42/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt served by the project website (https://www.fast-report.com/llms.txt) |
| Legible commit history | partial | 26.7 / 40 | 50 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 26/100 (At Risk)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | Demos/OpenSource/Console apps/DataFromArray/DataFromArray.csproj, Demos/OpenSource/Console apps/DataFromBusinessObject/DataFromBusinessObject.csproj, Demos/OpenSource/Console apps/DataFromDataSet/DataFromDataSet.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Demos/OpenSource/SPA/FastReport.Core.Vue/clientapp/jsconfig.json, Demos/OpenSource/SPA/FastReport.OpenSource.Angular/ClientApp/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | no dependencies found |

### Code legibility for models — 99/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | C# (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.4 / 55 | 10/853 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | excluded | 0 / 40 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| MCP server | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | demos |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch npm package 'fastreport-web' from its registry

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt