Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 18:06 UTC

Seddryck / Didot

Didot is a command-line tool designed for generating files based on templating. It supports YAML, JSON, CSV, FrontMatter and XML as source data formats and provides flexibility in templating through both Scriban, Liquid, Handlebars, StringTemplate, Morestachio and SmartFormat engines.

C#Apache-2.0★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Seddryck/Didot holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (48/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Cédric L. CharlierPersonal account
43 followers80 public repossince Sep 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
NuGetDidot-cli0.34.24-17313 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
16.6/18Commit volume — 69 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 25 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year69
human_commit_share0.17
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 32 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 118 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~51.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tagv0.34.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release118
mean_days_between_releases51.6

Community & Adoption

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

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars — 3 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges16
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesci.appveyor.com, codecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50.7/80Total downloads — 75,570 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesDidot-cli
dependents—
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads75,570
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?

48Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.99
How it's scored
17.3/42Issue resolution — 41% of issues closed
16.6/30PR acceptance — 206/373 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs206
open_issues10
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.412
closed_unmerged_prs167
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.8/25Owner reach — 43 followers of Seddryck
25/25Track record — 80 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers43
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginSeddryck
public_repos80
account_age_days4,784
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 13 days ago
20/20Version history — 173 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesDidot-cli
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish13

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 19 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://seddryck.github.io/Didot/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotliquid, json, scriban, template, template-engine, xml, yaml, handlebars, smartformat, csv, frontmatter, stringtemplate, mustache
has_wikino
homepagehttps://seddryck.github.io/Didot/
docs_sitehttps://seddryck.github.io/Didot/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 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 — 19 out of 30 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/3 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 25 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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 — 11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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
advisories11
affected_packages5
assessed_packages65
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severityhigh 5
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 65 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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.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, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,505
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj, src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj, testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 83 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestssrc/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj, src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj, testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj, testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.83
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 1/135 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes403,074
source_files_sampled135
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

3GitHub stars
2contributors
69commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
32releases
1bus factor
10open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 18:05 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-Tests19 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/3 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
10Maintained25 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 44
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection10.0.13src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting10.0.13src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging10.0.13src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetSystem.CommandLine2.0.12src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetDomemtech.StringTemplate44.3.0src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetDotLiquid2.3.260src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetFluid.Core2.40.0src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetHandlebars.Net2.4.3src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetHandlebars.Net.Helpers2.5.5src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetMorestachio5.0.1.631src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetPocketCsvReader2.36.34src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetScriban7.5.0src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetSmartFormat.NET3.6.1src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetYamlDotNet18.1.0src/Didot.Cli/Didot.Cli.csproj
NuGetDomemtech.StringTemplate44.3.0src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetDotLiquid2.3.260src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetFluid.Core2.40.0src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetHandlebars.Net2.4.3src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetHandlebars.Net.Helpers2.5.5src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetMorestachio5.0.1.631src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetPocketCsvReader2.36.34src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetScriban7.5.0src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetSmartFormat.NET3.6.1src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetYamlDotNet18.1.0src/Didot.Core/Didot.Core.csproj
NuGetMoq4.21.0testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.10.1testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj
NuGetNUnit5.0.0testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj
NuGetNUnit.Analyzers4.15.0testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.3.0testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj
NuGetAppveyor.TestLogger2.0.0testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild10.1.0testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector10.1.0testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj
NuGetDotNet.ReproducibleBuilds2.0.5testing/Didot.Cli.Testing/Didot.Cli.Testing.csproj
NuGetMoq4.21.0testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.10.1testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
NuGetNUnit5.0.0testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
NuGetNUnit.Analyzers4.15.0testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.3.1testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
NuGetAppveyor.TestLogger2.0.0testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild10.1.0testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector10.1.0testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
NuGetDotNet.ReproducibleBuilds2.0.5testing/Didot.Core.Testing/Didot.Core.Testing.csproj
All dependencies 66

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 24 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetappveyor.testlogger2.0.0direct
NuGetcoverlet.collector10.1.0direct
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild10.1.0direct
NuGetDomemtech.StringTemplate44.3.0direct
NuGetDotLiquid2.3.260direct
NuGetFluid.Core2.40.0direct
NuGetHandlebars.Net2.4.3direct
NuGetHandlebars.Net.Helpers2.5.5direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection10.0.13direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting10.0.13direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging10.0.13direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.10.1direct
NuGetMoq4.21.0direct
NuGetMorestachio5.0.1.631direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4direct
NuGetNUnit5.0.0direct
NuGetNUnit.Analyzers4.15.0direct
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.3.0direct
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.3.1direct
NuGetPocketCsvReader2.36.34direct
NuGetScriban7.5.0direct
NuGetSmartFormat.NET3.6.1direct
NuGetSystem.CommandLine2.0.12direct
NuGetYamlDotNet18.1.0direct
npmcpr^2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.0indirect
RubyGemscolorator1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.1.10indirect
RubyGemsem-websocket0.5.3indirect
RubyGemseventmachine1.2.7indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http2.0.3indirect
RubyGemsffi1.15.5indirect
RubyGemsforwardable-extended2.6.0indirect
RubyGemshttp_parser.rb0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.12.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll4.2.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-avatar0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-feed0.16.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-gist1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-paginate1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sass-converter2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-seo-tag2.8.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-watch2.2.1indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.4.0indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsliquid4.0.3indirect
RubyGemslisten3.7.1indirect
RubyGemsmercenary0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsoctokit4.25.1indirect
RubyGemspathutil0.16.2indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix4.0.7indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.10.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.3.6indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.29.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemssafe_yaml1.0.5indirect
RubyGemssassc2.4.0indirect
RubyGemssawyer0.9.2indirect
RubyGemsstrscan3.1.0indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table2.0.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.4indirect
RubyGemstzinfo-data1.2022.1indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width1.8.0indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.7.0indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 65 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 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
addressable2.8.0indirecthigh12.9.0
concurrent-ruby1.1.10indirecthigh31.3.7
faraday2.3.0indirecthigh32.14.3
rexml3.3.6indirecthigh23.4.2
webrick1.7.0indirecthigh21.8.2

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.