Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-04 17:22 UTC

Fractions-DotNet / Fractions

A fraction data type to calculate with rational numbers.

C#MIT★ 63 stars⑂ 17 forkssince Apr 2013View on GitHub ↗

Fractions-DotNet/Fractions holds a health index of 20 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Security (51/100) and lowest on Vitality (1/100). It was last updated 473 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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 38 is calibrated to 33 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Fractions-DotNetOrganization

0 followers1 public reposince Apr 2025

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?

1Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 484 daysautomated commits excludeda published fix left unappliedOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintainedcontinuous integration brokenOverall rating: At Risk ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 473 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	473
active_weeks_last_year	0

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?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

42Weak

How it's scored

29.1/60	Stars — 63 stars
10/25	Forks — 17 forks
3.3/15	Watchers — 5 watchers

Inputs used

forks	17
stars	63
watchers	5
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 (MIT)
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	—
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)

24At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits
9.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	7
top_contributor_share	0.734

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent

How it's scored

40.7/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
26.8/30	PR acceptance — 75/84 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

merged_prs	75
open_issues	1
closed_issues	32
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.97
closed_unmerged_prs	9
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

35Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
0/25	Owner reach — 0 followers of Fractions-DotNet
4.8/25	Track record — 1 public repos, account ~1 yr old

Inputs used

followers	0
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	Fractions-DotNet
public_repos	1
account_age_days	485

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

54Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

48Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 6/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	4.8

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

64Moderate

How it's scored

14/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: Newtonsoft.Json 10.0.2 (high 7.5)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.7/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,504 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	12
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 12 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

21At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.3/40	Legible commit history — 40 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
legible_history_share	0.4
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

46Weak

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — benchmarks/Fractions.Benchmarks/Fractions.Benchmarks.csproj, src/Fractions.Json/Fractions.Json.csproj, src/Fractions/Fractions.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	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	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	benchmarks/Fractions.Benchmarks/Fractions.Benchmarks.csproj, src/Fractions.Json/Fractions.Json.csproj, src/Fractions/Fractions.csproj, tests/Fractions.Json.Tests/Fractions.Json.Tests.csproj, tests/Fractions.Tests/Fractions.Tests.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
53.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 3/97 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C#
largest_source_bytes	80,376
source_files_sampled	97
oversized_source_files	3

Key facts

63GitHub stars

7contributors

0commits, last 12 months

473days since last push

0releases

1bus factor

1open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 17 ⇿

0Stars

17Forks

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.

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10

4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 17:22 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3	Code-Review	Found 6/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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

Direct dependencies 1

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`13.0.3`	src/Fractions.Json/Fractions.Json.csproj

All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`10.0.2`	direct
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`13.0.3`	direct
NuGet	AwesomeAssertions	`8.1.0`	indirect
NuGet	BenchmarkDotNet	`0.14.0`	indirect
NuGet	FluentAssertions	`4.19.2`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`17.13.0`	indirect
NuGet	NUnit	`3.6.1`	indirect
NuGet	NUnit	`4.3.2`	indirect
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`5.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.ComponentModel.Primitives	`4.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.ComponentModel.TypeConverter	`4.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.Runtime	`4.3.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 12 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
Newtonsoft.Json	`10.0.2`	direct	high	1	`13.0.1`

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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