Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 23:07 UTC

OpenRakis / Spice86

Reverse engineer and rewrite real mode DOS programs!

C#Apache-2.0★ 652 stars⑂ 46 forkssince Dec 2021View on GitHub ↗
#reverse-engineering#emulator#gdb#gdb-commands#debugger#disassembler#dos#assembly#avaloniaui#cross-platform#linux#macos#windows#dotnet

OpenRakis/Spice86 holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Security (61/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OpenRakisOrganization
26 followers44 public repossince Dec 2021

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?

90Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
34.6/36Commit cadence — 50/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 529 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year529
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year50

Release discipline

76Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_taglatest
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases—

Community & Adoption

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

75Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

61Moderate
How it's scored
45.6/60Stars — 652 stars
13.8/25Forks — 46 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks46
stars652
watchers3
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 (Apache-2.0)
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

40Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 67% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.671

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good
How it's scored
38.1/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
15.2/30PR acceptance — 1,037/2,053 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs1,037
open_issues19
closed_issues186
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.907
closed_unmerged_prs1,016
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

77Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
10.3/25Owner reach — 26 followers of OpenRakis
21.2/25Track record — 44 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers26
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginOpenRakis
public_repos44
account_age_days1,668
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

72Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 14 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsreverse-engineering, emulator, gdb, gdb-commands, debugger, disassembler, dos, assembly, avaloniaui, cross-platform, linux, macos, windows, dotnet
has_wikiyes
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?

61Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

61Moderate
How it's scored
4.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.1

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.

77Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
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_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes18,154
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

62Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — tests/Spice86.Tests/Resources/RtcTests/Makefile, tests/Spice86.Tests/Resources/cpuTests/asmsrc/test386.asm/makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filestests/Spice86.Tests/Resources/RtcTests/Makefile, tests/Spice86.Tests/Resources/cpuTests/asmsrc/test386.asm/makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 13/1,402 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes117,643
source_files_sampled1,402
oversized_source_files13

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

652GitHub stars
18contributors
529commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
19open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 23:07 UTC

6Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
8SASTSAST tool detected but not 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
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 61 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAvalonia—indirect
NuGetAvalonia.Desktop—indirect
NuGetAvalonia.Fonts.Inter—indirect
NuGetAvalonia.Headless—indirect
NuGetAvalonia.Headless.XUnit—indirect
NuGetAvaloniaGraphControl—indirect
NuGetAvaloniaHex—indirect
NuGetAvaloniaUI.DiagnosticsSupport—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetbodong.Avalonia.PropertyGrid—indirect
NuGetbodong.PropertyModels—indirect
NuGetCommunityToolkit.HighPerformance—indirect
NuGetCommunityToolkit.Mvvm—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector—indirect
NuGetDeadpikle.AvaloniaProgressRing—indirect
NuGetDialogHost.Avalonia—indirect
NuGetDock.Avalonia—indirect
NuGetDock.Avalonia.Themes.Fluent—indirect
NuGetDock.Model.Avalonia—indirect
NuGetDock.Model.Mvvm—indirect
NuGetErrorProne.NET.CoreAnalyzers—indirect
NuGetFluentAssertions—indirect
NuGetFluentIcons.Avalonia—indirect
NuGetIced—indirect
NuGetJetBrains.Annotations—indirect
NuGetJvE.Structurizer—indirect
NuGetMeltySynth—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetModelContextProtocol.AspNetCore—indirect
NuGetModelContextProtocol.Core—indirect
NuGetMt32emu.net—indirect
NuGetNSubstitute—indirect
NuGetNSubstitute.Analyzers.CSharp—indirect
NuGetNukedOPL3Sharp—indirect
NuGetPanAndZoom—indirect
NuGetRoslynator.Analyzers—indirect
NuGetRoslynator.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers—indirect
NuGetSemi.Avalonia—indirect
NuGetSemi.Avalonia.Dock—indirect
NuGetSerilog—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Extensions.Hosting—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Async—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Console—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Debug—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.File—indirect
NuGetSilk.NET.SDL—indirect
NuGetSingleStepTests.Intel80386.00-65—indirect
NuGetSingleStepTests.Intel80386.66-66—indirect
NuGetSingleStepTests.Intel80386.67.00-67.7F—indirect
NuGetSingleStepTests.Intel80386.67.80-67.FF—indirect
NuGetSingleStepTests.Intel80386.68-FF—indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp—indirect
NuGetSpectre.Console.Cli—indirect
NuGetSpice86.Audio—indirect
NuGetSpice86.DataGrid—indirect
NuGetSwashbuckle.AspNetCore—indirect
NuGetXaml.Behaviors.Avalonia—indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—indirect
NuGetxunit.v3—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 OpenRakis/Spice86. Read them side by side →

100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional98unoplatform/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.Exceptional94dosbox-staging/dosbox-stagingDOSBox Staging is a modern continuation of DOSBox with advanced features and current development practices.Exceptional93mumble-voip/mumbleMumble is an open-source, low-latency, high quality voice chat software.Exceptional99pypa/cibuildwheel🎡 Build Python wheels for all the platforms with minimal configuration. Exceptional99nodejs/nodeNode.js JavaScript runtime ✨🐢🚀✨Exceptional

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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