Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-22 10:14 UTC

OutSystems / CefGlue

.NET binding for The Chromium Embedded Framework (CEF)

C# · C++MIT★ 456 stars⑂ 89 forkssince Apr 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryDesktop applicationhow this is determined

OutSystems/CefGlue holds a health index of 51 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (72/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (29/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

51
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

51
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OutSystemsOrganization
497 followers236 public repossince Nov 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetCefGlue.Avalonia120.6099.200-85859 days agocefchromiumchromebrowsercefglue
NuGetCefGlue.Common120.6099.214-1000 days agocefchromiumchromebrowsercefglue
NuGetCefGlue.WPF120.6099.214-970 days agocefchromiumchromebrowsercefglue

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

37Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume — 1 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 1 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 990 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tag120.6099.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release990
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

64Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.1/60Stars — 456 stars
16.2/25Forks — 89 forks
9.1/15Watchers — 44 watchers
Inputs used
forks89
stars456
watchers44
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
62.2/80Total downloads — 978,293 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesCefGlue.Avalonia, CefGlue.Common, CefGlue.WPF
dependents—
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads978,293
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 48% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 34 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled34
top_contributor_share0.48
How it's scored
22.1/42Issue resolution — 53% of issues closed
21.2/30PR acceptance — 96/136 decided PRs merged
4.3/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 25/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs96
open_issues52
closed_issues58
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.527
closed_unmerged_prs40
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
19.4/25Owner reach — 497 followers of OutSystems
25/25Track record — 236 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers497
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginOutSystems
public_repos236
account_age_days5,045

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 100 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesCefGlue.Avalonia, CefGlue.Common, CefGlue.WPF
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

29At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbrowser, windows, macos, avalonia, wpf, cef, dotnet, webview, csharp, xaml, snyk-service-studio, odc, linux
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

55Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 25/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages16
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 2 resolved dependencies against OSV. 16 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.

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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 83 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.83
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — CefGlue.Avalonia/CefGlue.Avalonia.csproj, CefGlue.BrowserProcess/CefGlue.BrowserProcess.csproj, CefGlue.Common.Shared/CefGlue.Common.Shared.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCefGlue.Avalonia/CefGlue.Avalonia.csproj, CefGlue.BrowserProcess/CefGlue.BrowserProcess.csproj, CefGlue.Common.Shared/CefGlue.Common.Shared.csproj, CefGlue.Common/CefGlue.Common.csproj, CefGlue.Demo.Avalonia/CefGlue.Demo.Avalonia.csproj, CefGlue.Demo.WPF/CefGlue.Demo.WPF.csproj, CefGlue.Tests/CefGlue.Tests.csproj, CefGlue.WPF/CefGlue.WPF.csproj, CefGlue/CefGlue.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 3/843 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes107,693
source_files_sampled843
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

456GitHub stars
34contributors
1commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
2bus factor
52open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 89 ⇿
0Stars
89Forks
1Releases

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.

0204060801008122021-092024-032026-09
Major 0Minor 0Patch 1

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-22 10:13 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1CI-Tests3 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 25/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
1SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetAvalonia—CefGlue.Avalonia/CefGlue.Avalonia.csproj
NuGetAvalonia.ReactiveUI—CefGlue.Avalonia/CefGlue.Avalonia.csproj
NuGetSystem.Reactive.Linq—CefGlue.Avalonia/CefGlue.Avalonia.csproj
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Loader—CefGlue.BrowserProcess/CefGlue.BrowserProcess.csproj
NuGetSystem.Text.Json—CefGlue.Common.Shared/CefGlue.Common.Shared.csproj
NuGetSystem.Text.Json—CefGlue.Common/CefGlue.Common.csproj
NuGetNLog—CefGlue.Common/CefGlue.Common.csproj
NuGetAvalonia.Desktop—CefGlue.Demo.Avalonia/CefGlue.Demo.Avalonia.csproj
NuGetDotnet.Bundle—CefGlue.Demo.Avalonia/CefGlue.Demo.Avalonia.csproj
NuGetAvalonia.Diagnostics—CefGlue.Demo.Avalonia/CefGlue.Demo.Avalonia.csproj
NuGetAvalonia.Desktop—CefGlue.Tests/CefGlue.Tests.csproj
NuGetnunit—CefGlue.Tests/CefGlue.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—CefGlue.Tests/CefGlue.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—CefGlue.Tests/CefGlue.Tests.csproj
NuGetMoq—CefGlue.Tests/CefGlue.Tests.csproj
NuGetAvalonia.Themes.Simple—CefGlue.Tests/CefGlue.Tests.csproj
NuGetSystem.Data.DataSetExtensions—CefGlue.WPF/CefGlue.WPF.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.Compatibility—CefGlue.WPF/CefGlue.WPF.csproj
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAvalonia—direct
NuGetAvalonia.Desktop—direct
NuGetAvalonia.Diagnostics—direct
NuGetAvalonia.ReactiveUI—direct
NuGetAvalonia.Themes.Simple—direct
NuGetDotnet.Bundle—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.Compatibility—direct
NuGetMoq—direct
NuGetNLog—direct
NuGetNUnit—direct
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—direct
NuGetSystem.Data.DataSetExtensions—direct
NuGetSystem.Reactive.Linq—direct
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Loader—direct
NuGetSystem.Text.Json—direct
NuGetcef.redist.x6475.1.14indirect
NuGetcef.redist.x6485.3.12indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 2 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 16 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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 statistics — NuGet.