Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 21:56 UTC

FlorianRappl / Mages

:tophat: MAGES is a very simple, yet powerful, expression parser and interpreter.

C#MIT★ 131 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Apr 2016View on GitHub ↗
#nuget#expression-parser#interpreter#dotnet#c-sharp

FlorianRappl/Mages holds a health index of 41 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (69/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated 246 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

41
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.

41
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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Florian RapplPersonal account
515 followers136 public repossince May 2012@smapiot

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

28At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

14Critical
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 246 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume — 12 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push246
active_weeks_last_year1

Release discipline

49Weak
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 21 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 246 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~375.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv3.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release246
mean_days_between_releases375.1

Community & Adoption

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

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

49Weak
How it's scored
34.3/60Stars — 131 stars
9.8/25Forks — 16 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks16
stars131
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

52Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

18Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.991

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
41.3/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
23.3/30PR acceptance — 7/9 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs7
open_issues2
closed_issues126
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.984
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

68Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
19.5/25Owner reach — 515 followers of FlorianRappl
25/25Track record — 136 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers515
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginFlorianRappl
public_repos136
account_age_days5,170
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnuget, expression-parser, interpreter, dotnet, c-sharp
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

29At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

29At Risk
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 — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate2.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

24At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

13Critical
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/323 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes40,572
source_files_sampled323
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

131GitHub stars
4contributors
12commits, last 12 months
246days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
2open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 21:56 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 33 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.15.6indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.9.6indirect
NuGetCake1.1.0indirect
NuGetClowd.Squirrel2.11.1indirect
NuGetClowd.Squirrel2.9.40indirect
NuGetCommandLineParser2.0.275-betaindirect
NuGetCommandLineParser2.9.1indirect
NuGetDeltaCompressionDotNet1.0.0indirect
NuGetGitHubActionsTestLogger2.4.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Web.Xdt2.1.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Web.Xdt3.0.0indirect
NuGetMono.Cecil0.9.6.1indirect
NuGetNinject3.2.2.0indirect
NuGetNinject3.3.6indirect
NuGetNuGet.Core2.11.1indirect
NuGetNuGet.Core2.14.0indirect
NuGetNUnit4.4.0indirect
NuGetNUnit.ConsoleRunner3.12.0indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter5.2.0indirect
NuGetOctokit0.50.0indirect
NuGetOxyPlot.Core1.0.0-unstable2100indirect
NuGetOxyPlot.Core2.2.0indirect
NuGetSplat1.6.2indirect
NuGetSystem.CodeDom5.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common5.0.3indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Principal.Windows5.0.0indirect
NuGetThrower2.2.2indirect
NuGetTroschuetz.Random4.0.4indirect
NuGetTroschuetz.Random4.4.0indirect
NuGetYAMP1.5.3.15660indirect
NuGetYAMP1.6.0.40202indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with FlorianRappl/Mages. Read them side by side →

91quartznet/quartznetQuartz Enterprise Scheduler .NETExcellent88confluentinc/confluent-kafka-dotnetConfluent's Apache Kafka .NET clientExcellent100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional99Azure/azure-sdk-for-netThis repository is for active development of the Azure SDK for .NET. For consumers of the SDK we recommend visiting our public developer docs at https://learn.microsoft.com/dotnet/azure/ or our versioned developer docs at https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk-for-net. Exceptional98unoplatform/unoOpen-source platform for building cross-platform native Mobile, Web, Desktop, and Embedded apps from a single C#/XAML codebase. Work from any IDE/CLI with Hot Reload, Visual Designer, MCPs, and Skills built for modern .NET workflows. 200M+ NuGet downloads.Exceptional96GitTools/GitVersionFrom git log to SemVer in no timeExceptional

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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