Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 10:08 UTC

MudBlazor / Translations

Crowdsourced translations for the MudBlazor component library.

HTML · C#MIT★ 38 stars⑂ 20 forkssince Jul 2024View on GitHub ↗

MudBlazor/Translations holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (46/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MudBlazorOrganization · verified domain
614 followers9 public repossince Feb 2021

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume385 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year385
human_commit_share0.63
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year43
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases24 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~51.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count24
latest_release_tagv3.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases51.1

Community & Adoption

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

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
25.4/60Stars38 stars
10.7/25Forks20 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks20
stars38
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
58.8/80Total downloads456,371 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesMudBlazor.Translations
dependents
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads456,371
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?

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.513
How it's scored
38.8/42Issue resolution92% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance396/412 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 5/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs396
open_issues1
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d7
prs_decided_7d7
prs_merged_30d9
prs_decided_30d10
issue_closed_ratio0.923
closed_unmerged_prs16
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
20.1/25Owner reach614 followers of MudBlazor
18.4/25Track record9 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers614
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginMudBlazor
public_repos9
account_age_days2,025

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history22 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesMudBlazor.Translations
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://hosted.weblate.org/engage/mudblazor/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscsharp, mudblazor, translations, localization, blazor, dotnet, i18n, nuget, weblate
has_wikino
homepagehttps://hosted.weblate.org/engage/mudblazor/
docs_sitehttps://hosted.weblate.org/engage/mudblazor/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests26 out of 26 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
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 5/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.9

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages6
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 6 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
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history57 of 63 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.905
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapsrc/MudBlazor.Translations/MudBlazor.Translations.csproj, test/MudBlazor.Translations.SampleApp/MudBlazor.Translations.SampleApp.csproj, test/MudBlazor.Translations.Tests/MudBlazor.Translations.Tests.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance37 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestssrc/MudBlazor.Translations/MudBlazor.Translations.csproj, test/MudBlazor.Translations.SampleApp/MudBlazor.Translations.SampleApp.csproj, test/MudBlazor.Translations.Tests/MudBlazor.Translations.Tests.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.37
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeHTML without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes2,595
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

38GitHub stars
99contributors
385commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
24releases
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 ★ / 20 ⇿
0Stars
20Forks
19Releases

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.

0481216201912024-072025-052026-03
Major 3Minor 13Patch 1

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 10:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 5/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
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 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMudBlazor9.0.0src/MudBlazor.Translations/MudBlazor.Translations.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.ResxSourceGenerator3.11.0-beta1.26226.5src/MudBlazor.Translations/MudBlazor.Translations.csproj
All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.ResxSourceGenerator3.11.0-beta1.26226.5direct
NuGetMudBlazor9.0.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.10.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage18.11.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.TrxReport2.4.0indirect
NuGetTUnit1.67.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 6 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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

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 statisticsNuGet.