Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 21:10 UTC

Puchaczov / Musoq

SQL Runtime without any database

C#MIT★ 505 stars⑂ 22 forkssince Jan 2018View on GitHub ↗
#sql#csharp#csv#dotnet#cross-platform#data-analysis-sql#data-exploration#data-processing#file-system#plugin-architecture#query-language#text-processing#ai-assisted-queries#dotnet-core#dotnetcore#sql-like

Puchaczov/Musoq holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Security (41/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
overall / 100
Good

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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jakub PuchałaPersonal account
0 followers20 public repossince Mar 2014

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

75Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
20.8/36Commit cadence — 30/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 153 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year153
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year30

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 46 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count46
latest_release_tagv17.0.2-alpha.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2.1

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

59Moderate
How it's scored
43.8/60Stars — 505 stars
11/25Forks — 22 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks22
stars505
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

65Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

44Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

19Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.896

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.6/30PR acceptance — 157/177 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs157
open_issues0
closed_issues21
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs20
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

40Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of Puchaczov
21.6/25Track record — 20 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginPuchaczov
public_repos20
account_age_days4,505
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good
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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 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

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://puchaczov.github.io/Musoq/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 16 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssql, csharp, csv, dotnet, cross-platform, data-analysis-sql, data-exploration, data-processing, file-system, plugin-architecture, query-language, text-processing, ai-assisted-queries, dotnet-core, dotnetcore, sql-like
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://puchaczov.github.io/Musoq/
docs_sitehttps://puchaczov.github.io/Musoq/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

41Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

41Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SAST — SAST tool is 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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 20 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

69Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.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_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes39,638
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 11/1,307 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes209,262
source_files_sampled1,307
oversized_source_files11

Key facts

505GitHub stars
6contributors
153commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
46releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 21:10 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
10CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
0Vulnerabilities20 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsgithub-pages—docs/Gemfile
RubyGemsjekyll-remote-theme—docs/Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—docs/Gemfile
All dependencies 116

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 113 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsgithub-pages232direct
RubyGemsjekyll-remote-theme0.4.3direct
RubyGemsrake13.2.1direct
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.15.4indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.15.6indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.0indirect
NuGetCsvHelper33.1.0indirect
NuGetDiffPlex1.9.0indirect
NuGetFastenshtein1.0.11indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis4.14.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Common4.14.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp4.14.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Workspaces.Common4.14.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions9.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub8.0.0indirect
NuGetMoq4.20.72indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter4.0.1indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Emit.Lightweight4.7.0indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.0.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.7indirect
RubyGemsbase640.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.8indirect
RubyGemscoffee-script2.4.1indirect
RubyGemscoffee-script-source1.12.2indirect
RubyGemscolorator1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscommonmarker0.23.11indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.4indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.4.1indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.1indirect
RubyGemsdnsruby1.72.3indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsem-websocket0.5.3indirect
RubyGemsethon0.16.0indirect
RubyGemseventmachine1.2.7indirect
RubyGemsexecjs2.10.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.0indirect
RubyGemsforwardable-extended2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgemoji4.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgithub-pages-health-check1.18.2indirect
RubyGemshtml-pipeline2.14.3indirect
RubyGemshttp_parser.rb0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.6indirect
RubyGemsjekyll3.10.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-avatar0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-coffeescript1.2.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-commonmark1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-commonmark-ghpages0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-default-layout0.1.5indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-feed0.17.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-gist1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-github-metadata2.16.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-include-cache0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-mentions1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-optional-front-matter0.3.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-paginate1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-readme-index0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-redirect-from0.16.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-relative-links0.6.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sass-converter1.5.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-seo-tag2.8.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sitemap1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-swiss1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-architect0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-cayman0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-dinky0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-hacker0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-leap-day0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-merlot0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-midnight0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-minimal0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-modernist0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-primer0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-slate0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-tactile0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-time-machine0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-titles-from-headings0.5.3indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-watch2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjemoji0.13.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.18.1indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.4.0indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsliquid4.0.4indirect
RubyGemslisten3.9.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmercenary0.3.6indirect
RubyGemsminima2.5.1indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.25.4indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.1indirect
RubyGemsoctokit4.25.1indirect
RubyGemspathutil0.16.2indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix5.1.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.30.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.3.2indirect
RubyGemssafe_yaml1.0.5indirect
RubyGemssass3.7.4indirect
RubyGemssass-listen4.0.0indirect
RubyGemssawyer0.9.2indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.0indirect
RubyGemssimpleidn0.2.3indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table1.8.0indirect
RubyGemstyphoeus1.4.1indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width1.8.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.9.1indirect
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 Puchaczov/Musoq. Read them side by side →

95bitwarden/serverBitwarden infrastructure/backend (API, database, Docker, etc).Exceptional100AvaloniaUI/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.Exceptional94NLog/NLogNLog - Flexible and Structured Logging for various .NET PlatformsExceptional94MonoGame/MonoGameOne framework for creating powerful cross-platform games.Exceptional94tui-cs/Terminal.GuiCross Platform Terminal UI toolkit for .NETExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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