Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 05:24 UTC

RicoSuter / Namotion.Interceptor

Observable .NET object graphs with MQTT, OPC UA, and WebSocket sync

C#MIT★ 11 stars⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2024View on GitHub ↗
#aspnetcore#blazor#csharp#dotnet#graphql#interceptor#iot#mqtt#opcua#websocket

RicoSuter/Namotion.Interceptor holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (32/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Rico SuterPersonal account
1,229 followers59 public repossince Oct 2012Independent Software Engineer

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?

98Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

97Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.2/36Commit cadence — 48/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 243 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year243
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year48

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 67 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~18 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count67
latest_release_tagv0.8.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases18
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?

32At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

16Critical
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars — 11 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars11
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

43Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

44Weak
How it's scored
12.9/42Issue resolution — 31% of issues closed
25.1/30PR acceptance — 208/249 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs208
open_issues61
closed_issues27
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.307
closed_unmerged_prs41
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

71Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
22.2/25Owner reach — 1,229 followers of RicoSuter
24.9/25Track record — 59 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,229
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginRicoSuter
public_repos59
account_age_days5,018
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

66Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 28 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
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 — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaspnetcore, blazor, csharp, dotnet, graphql, interceptor, iot, mqtt, opcua, websocket
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?

46Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

46Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 28 out of 30 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 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
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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.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, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,778
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
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
lockfiles—
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)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/1,053 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes48,151
source_files_sampled1,053
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

11GitHub stars
1contributors
243commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
67releases
1bus factor
61open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 05:24 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests28 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 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
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 66

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 66 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.15.5indirect
NuGetBlazorMonaco3.4.0indirect
NuGetBogus—indirect
NuGetCastle.Core5.2.1indirect
NuGetCodeBeam.MudBlazor.Extensions9.0.3indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.4indirect
NuGetExcubo.Blazor.Diagrams—indirect
NuGetFluentStorage—indirect
NuGetHotChocolate.AspNetCore15.1.11indirect
NuGetHueApi3.1.2indirect
NuGetHueApi.ColorConverters3.1.0indirect
NuGetIot.Device.Bindings—indirect
NuGetMarkdig—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Components9.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Testing9.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers4.14.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp4.14.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions9.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyModel—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting9.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting9.0.4indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions9.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Http—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions9.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.IO.RecyclableMemoryStream3.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.12.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.14.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Playwright1.57.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.DiagnosticsHub.BenchmarkDotNetDiagnosers18.0.36525.3indirect
NuGetModelContextProtocol1.2.0indirect
NuGetModelContextProtocol.AspNetCore1.2.0indirect
NuGetMoq4.20.72indirect
NuGetMQTTnet5.1.0.1559indirect
NuGetMQTTnet.Server5.1.0.1559indirect
NuGetMudBlazor—indirect
NuGetNBench2.0.1indirect
NuGetNSwag.AspNetCore14.6.1indirect
NuGetNuGet.Frameworks7.3.1indirect
NuGetNuGet.Protocol7.3.1indirect
NuGetOPCFoundation.NetStandard.Opc.Ua.Client1.5.378.145indirect
NuGetOPCFoundation.NetStandard.Opc.Ua.Server1.5.378.145indirect
NuGetPro.NBench.xUnit2.0.0indirect
NuGetPublicApiGenerator11.5.4indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Immutable8.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Device.Gpio—indirect
NuGetSystem.Linq.Async6.0.3indirect
NuGetSystem.Reactive—indirect
NuGetSystem.Reactive6.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Metadata—indirect
NuGetToolbelt.Blazor.HotKeys26.0.1indirect
NuGetVerify.Xunit31.3.0indirect
NuGetxunit—indirect
NuGetxunit2.9.2indirect
NuGetxunit2.9.3indirect
NuGetXunit.Extensions.AssemblyFixture2.6.0indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.0.1indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.4indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5indirect
NuGetYamlDotNet—indirect
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 RicoSuter/Namotion.Interceptor. Read them side by side →

97ravendb/ravendbACID Document DatabaseExceptional97abpframework/abpOpen-source web application framework for ASP.NET Core! Offers an opinionated architecture to build enterprise software solutions with best practices on top of the .NET. Provides the fundamental infrastructure, cross-cutting-concern implementations, startup templates, application modules, UI themes, tooling and documentation.Exceptional95bitwarden/serverBitwarden infrastructure/backend (API, database, Docker, etc).Exceptional94nats-io/nats.netAsync .NET client for NATS: pub/sub, request/reply, JetStream, KV, Object Store, ServicesExceptional100dotnet/aspnetcoreASP.NET Core is a cross-platform .NET framework for building modern cloud-based web applications on Windows, Mac, or Linux.Exceptional100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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