Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 22:10 UTC

SebastianStehle / mjml-net

.NET Fork of MJML library with 10x performance and 100% feature parity

C# · HTMLMIT★ 261 stars⑂ 21 forkssince Mar 2022View on GitHub ↗

SebastianStehle/mjml-net holds a health index of 41 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (62/100) and lowest on Vitality (13/100). It was last updated 92 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

41
overall / 100
Weak

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.

41
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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sebastian StehlePersonal account
145 followers109 public repossince Dec 2011Squidex

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?

13Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recencylast push 92 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
8.1/18Commit volume7 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year7
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push92
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
0/27Ships releasesno releases published
0/36Release recencyno releases
0/27Release cadenceno releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.2/60Stars261 stars
10.8/25Forks21 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks21
stars261
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 80% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth9 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.805
How it's scored
41.7/42Issue resolution99% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance95/105 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs95
open_issues1
closed_issues118
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.992
closed_unmerged_prs10
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
15.6/25Owner reach145 followers of SebastianStehle
25/25Track record109 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers145
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginSebastianStehle
public_repos109
account_age_days5,342
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests6 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
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
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsemail, mjml, mjml4, templating-engine
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?

37Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests6 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.7
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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/183 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes19,802
source_files_sampled183
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

261GitHub stars
9contributors
7commits, last 12 months
92days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
1open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 22:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests6 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/28 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
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
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
Direct dependencies 41
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.14.0Mjml.Net.Benchmark/Mjml.Net.Benchmark.csproj
NuGetCommandLineParser2.9.1Mjml.Net.Benchmark/Mjml.Net.Benchmark.csproj
NuGetMjml.Net1.24.0Mjml.Net.Benchmark/Mjml.Net.Benchmark.csproj
NuGetMjml.Net2.0.0Mjml.Net.Benchmark/Mjml.Net.Benchmark.csproj
NuGetMjml.Net2.1.0-beta1Mjml.Net.Benchmark/Mjml.Net.Benchmark.csproj
NuGetMjml.Net3.8.0Mjml.Net.Benchmark/Mjml.Net.Benchmark.csproj
NuGetHandlebars.Net2.1.6Mjml.Net.Generator/Mjml.Net.Generator.csproj
NuGetMeziantou.Analyzer2.0.185Mjml.Net.Generator/Mjml.Net.Generator.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp4.12.0Mjml.Net.Generator/Mjml.Net.Generator.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers3.11.0Mjml.Net.Generator/Mjml.Net.Generator.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub8.0.0Mjml.Net.Generator/Mjml.Net.Generator.csproj
NuGetRefactoringEssentials5.6.0Mjml.Net.Generator/Mjml.Net.Generator.csproj
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.556Mjml.Net.Generator/Mjml.Net.Generator.csproj
NuGetAngleSharp1.2.0Mjml.Net.PostProcessors/Mjml.Net.PostProcessors.csproj
NuGetAngleSharp.Css1.0.0-beta.144Mjml.Net.PostProcessors/Mjml.Net.PostProcessors.csproj
NuGetMeziantou.Analyzer2.0.185Mjml.Net.PostProcessors/Mjml.Net.PostProcessors.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub8.0.0Mjml.Net.PostProcessors/Mjml.Net.PostProcessors.csproj
NuGetRefactoringEssentials5.6.0Mjml.Net.PostProcessors/Mjml.Net.PostProcessors.csproj
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.556Mjml.Net.PostProcessors/Mjml.Net.PostProcessors.csproj
NuGetHtmlPerformanceKit1.0.0Mjml.Net/Mjml.Net.csproj
NuGetMeziantou.Analyzer2.0.185Mjml.Net/Mjml.Net.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.ObjectPool9.0.0Mjml.Net/Mjml.Net.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.ObjectPool8.0.11Mjml.Net/Mjml.Net.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub8.0.0Mjml.Net/Mjml.Net.csproj
NuGetRefactoringEssentials5.6.0Mjml.Net/Mjml.Net.csproj
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.556Mjml.Net/Mjml.Net.csproj
NuGetAngleSharp1.2.0Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetAngleSharp.Diffing1.0.0Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetFakeItEasy8.3.0Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetFluentAssertions7.0.0Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.12.0Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit2.9.3Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.0.0Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.3Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetMeziantou.Analyzer2.0.185Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetRefactoringEssentials5.6.0Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.556Tests/Tests.csproj
NuGetMeziantou.Analyzer2.0.185Tools/Tools.csproj
NuGetRefactoringEssentials5.6.0Tools/Tools.csproj
NuGetSquidex.Text6.23.0Tools/Tools.csproj
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.556Tools/Tools.csproj
All dependencies 26

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 26 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAngleSharp1.2.0direct
NuGetAngleSharp.Css1.0.0-beta.144direct
NuGetAngleSharp.Diffing1.0.0direct
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.14.0direct
NuGetCommandLineParser2.9.1direct
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.3direct
NuGetFakeItEasy8.3.0direct
NuGetFluentAssertions7.0.0direct
NuGetHandlebars.Net2.1.6direct
NuGetHtmlPerformanceKit1.0.0direct
NuGetMeziantou.Analyzer2.0.185direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers3.11.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp4.12.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.ObjectPool8.0.11direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.ObjectPool9.0.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.12.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub8.0.0direct
NuGetMjml.Net1.24.0direct
NuGetMjml.Net2.0.0direct
NuGetMjml.Net2.1.0-beta1direct
NuGetMjml.Net3.8.0direct
NuGetRefactoringEssentials5.6.0direct
NuGetSquidex.Text6.23.0direct
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.556direct
NuGetxunit2.9.3direct
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.0.0direct
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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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