Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 13:40 UTC

PragmaticFlow / NBomber

Distributed load-testing framework for .NET. Create distributed load test scenarios entirely using plain C# or F#. It is designed to test any system regardless of the protocol or a semantic model (Pull/Push).

CSS · F#No license detected★ 2,237 stars⑂ 140 forkssince Jul 2018View on GitHub ↗

PragmaticFlow/NBomber holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (64/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated 32 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

NBomberOrganization
37 followers26 public repossince Jul 2018

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?

64Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 32 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
12.4/18Commit volume — 23 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year23
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push32
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 48 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 31 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~57.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count48
latest_release_tagv6.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release31
mean_days_between_releases57.6
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
54.3/60Stars — 2,237 stars
17.9/25Forks — 140 forks
8/15Watchers — 28 watchers
Inputs used
forks140
stars2,237
watchers28
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 20 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled20
top_contributor_share0.882
How it's scored
31.1/42Issue resolution — 74% of issues closed
26.9/30PR acceptance — 268/299 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs268
open_issues168
closed_issues481
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.741
closed_unmerged_prs31
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
11.4/25Owner reach — 37 followers of PragmaticFlow
22.4/25Track record — 26 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers37
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginPragmaticFlow
public_repos26
account_age_days2,996

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://nbomber.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsload-testing, performance-testing, integration-testing, fsharp, dotnet, csharp
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://nbomber.com
docs_sitehttps://nbomber.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
2.2/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories3
affected_packages3
assessed_packages76
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severityhigh 3
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 76 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
13.9/40Legible commit history — 26 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.26
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — examples/BookstoreSimulator/BookstoreSimulator.csproj, examples/Demo/Demo.csproj, examples/GrpcClient/GrpcClient.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsexamples/BookstoreSimulator/BookstoreSimulator.csproj, examples/Demo/Demo.csproj, examples/GrpcClient/GrpcClient.csproj, examples/GrpcServerSimulator/GrpcServerSimulator.csproj, examples/HttpApiSimulator/HttpApiSimulator.csproj, examples/K8sDemo/K8sDemo.csproj, examples/NBomberStudioK8sDemo/NBomberStudioK8sDemo.csproj, examples/WebSocketsSimulator/WebSocketsSimulator.csproj, examples/xUnitExample/xUnitExample.csproj, performance/NBomber.CSharpImpl/NBomber.CSharpImpl.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — CSS without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/138 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageCSS
largest_source_bytes20,144
source_files_sampled138
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — examples/GrpcClient/Protos/simulator.proto, examples/GrpcServerSimulator/Protos/simulator.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesexamples/GrpcClient/Protos/simulator.proto, examples/GrpcServerSimulator/Protos/simulator.proto
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2,237GitHub stars
20contributors
23commits, last 12 months
32days since last push
48releases
1bus factor
168open 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 ★ / 140 ⇿
0Stars
140Forks
46Releases

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.

025507510012515013952018-082022-072026-06
Major 0Minor 17Patch 18

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10
3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 13:40 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
6CI-Tests5 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 77

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 77 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.12.1indirect
NuGetBogus34.0.2indirect
NuGetCommandLineParser2.8.0indirect
NuGetConsoleTables2.4.2indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector8.0.1indirect
NuGetDapper.Contrib2.0.78indirect
NuGetFluentValidation11.6.0indirect
NuGetFSharpx.Collections2.1.2indirect
NuGetFsToolkit.ErrorHandling.TaskResult2.13.0indirect
NuGetFuncyDown1.3.0indirect
NuGetGoogle.Protobuf3.31.1indirect
NuGetGrpc.AspNetCore2.71.0indirect
NuGetGrpc.Net.Client2.71.0indirect
NuGetGrpc.Tools2.72.0indirect
NuGetHdrHistogram2.5.0indirect
NuGetLiteDB5.0.15indirect
NuGetMessagePack2.5.302indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.App—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer7.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.WebSockets2.1.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens8.3.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.IO.RecyclableMemoryStream3.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk15.9.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk16.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.14.1indirect
NuGetMongoDB.Driver2.7.0indirect
NuGetMongoDB.Driver2.8.1indirect
NuGetMongoDB.Driver3.8.1indirect
NuGetNBomber6.6.0indirect
NuGetNBomber.AMQP0.2.2indirect
NuGetNBomber.Contracts4.2.0-beta.2indirect
NuGetNBomber.Data6.1.1indirect
NuGetNBomber.Http0.16.0indirect
NuGetNBomber.Http1.0.0-rcindirect
NuGetNBomber.Http6.2.1indirect
NuGetNBomber.MQTT0.5.1indirect
NuGetNBomber.RestSharp0.2.1indirect
NuGetNBomber.Sinks.Datadog0.1.1indirect
NuGetNBomber.Sinks.InfluxDB0.16.0indirect
NuGetNBomber.Sinks.InfluxDB1.0.0-rcindirect
NuGetNBomber.Sinks.InfluxDB6.1.1indirect
NuGetNBomber.Sinks.OpenTelemetry0.2.2indirect
NuGetNBomber.Sinks.Timescale0.14.0indirect
NuGetNBomber.WebBrowser0.2.2indirect
NuGetNBomber.WebSockets0.1.3indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3indirect
NuGetNpgsql9.0.3indirect
NuGetNUnit3.12.0indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter3.10.0indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter3.13.0indirect
NuGetPly0.3.1indirect
NuGetSerilog4.2.0indirect
NuGetSerilog.AspNetCore7.0.0indirect
NuGetSerilog.Enrichers.Environment2.2.0indirect
NuGetSerilog.Enrichers.Thread3.1.0indirect
NuGetSerilog.Settings.Configuration3.3.0indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Elasticsearch8.0.1indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Elasticsearch9.0.0indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.File5.0.0indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Grafana.Loki8.3.0indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.SpectreConsole0.3.3indirect
NuGetSharpCompress0.48.1indirect
NuGetStackExchange.Redis2.6.122indirect
NuGetStreams0.5.0indirect
NuGetSwashbuckle.AspNetCore6.6.2indirect
NuGetSwashbuckle.AspNetCore.Swagger6.5.0indirect
NuGetSwashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerGen6.5.0indirect
NuGetSwashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerUI6.5.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Data.SQLite.Core1.0.117indirect
NuGetSystem.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt8.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt8.6.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json9.0.0indirect
NuGetUnquote5.0.0indirect
NuGetxunit2.4.1indirect
NuGetxunit2.9.3indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.4.1indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.4indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 76 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
Microsoft.AspNetCore.WebSockets2.1.1indirecthigh14.5.3
MongoDB.Driver2.7.0indirecthigh12.19.0
MongoDB.Driver2.8.1indirecthigh12.19.0

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.