Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 02:18 UTC

SixLabors / ImageSharp.Drawing

:pen: Extensions to ImageSharp containing a cross-platform 2D polygon manipulation API and drawing operations.

C#Custom license★ 316 stars⑂ 47 forkssince Jan 2020View on GitHub ↗

SixLabors/ImageSharp.Drawing holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Security (62/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

90
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Six LaborsOrganization · verified domain
257 followers26 public repossince Jan 2017

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 7 days ago
18/36Commit cadence — 26/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 190 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year190
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year26
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 21 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 30 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~108.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv3.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release30
mean_days_between_releases108.8
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?

79Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.5/60Stars — 316 stars
13.9/25Forks — 47 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks47
stars316
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 54,269,714 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesSixLabors.ImageSharp.Drawing, SixLabors.ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU
dependents—
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads54,269,714
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?

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 56 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 22 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled56
top_contributor_share0.513
How it's scored
41.6/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
29.3/30PR acceptance — 162/166 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs162
open_issues1
closed_issues116
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.991
closed_unmerged_prs4
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
20/20Verified domain
17.3/25Owner reach — 257 followers of SixLabors
22.4/25Track record — 26 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers257
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginSixLabors
public_repos26
account_age_days3,521

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 30 days ago
20/20Version history — 13 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesSixLabors.ImageSharp.Drawing, SixLabors.ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish30

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 7 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://sixlabors.com/products/imagesharp-drawing/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscsharp, dotnet, drawing, 2d-graphics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://sixlabors.com/products/imagesharp-drawing/
docs_sitehttps://sixlabors.com/products/imagesharp-drawing/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 7 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 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
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages10
unassessed_packages8
affected_by_severitynone
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 10 resolved dependencies against OSV. 8 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.

76Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.9/40Legible commit history — 65 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.691
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,564
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — samples/DrawShapesWithImageSharp/DrawShapesWithImageSharp.csproj, samples/DrawingBackendBenchmark/DrawingBackendBenchmark.csproj, samples/WebGPUExternalSurfaceDemo/WebGPUExternalSurfaceDemo.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 6 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
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestssamples/DrawShapesWithImageSharp/DrawShapesWithImageSharp.csproj, samples/DrawingBackendBenchmark/DrawingBackendBenchmark.csproj, samples/WebGPUExternalSurfaceDemo/WebGPUExternalSurfaceDemo.csproj, samples/WebGPUWindowDemo/WebGPUWindowDemo.csproj, src/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU.ShaderGen/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU.ShaderGen.csproj, src/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU.csproj, src/ImageSharp.Drawing/ImageSharp.Drawing.csproj, tests/ImageSharp.Drawing.Benchmarks/ImageSharp.Drawing.Benchmarks.csproj, tests/ImageSharp.Drawing.ManualBenchmarks/ImageSharp.Drawing.ManualBenchmarks.csproj, tests/ImageSharp.Drawing.Tests/ImageSharp.Drawing.Tests.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
53.7/55Manageable file sizes — 12/499 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes369,849
source_files_sampled499
oversized_source_files12
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

316GitHub stars
56contributors
190commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 47 ⇿
0Stars
47Forks
21Releases

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.

010203040504722020-022023-052026-09
Major 3Minor 2Patch 8

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 02:17 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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-Tests7 out of 7 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 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
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp4.14.0src/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU.ShaderGen/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU.ShaderGen.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers3.11.0src/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU.ShaderGen/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU.ShaderGen.csproj
NuGetSilk.NET.Windowing.Glfw2.23.0src/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU.csproj
NuGetSilk.NET.Windowing.Sdl2.23.0src/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU/ImageSharp.Drawing.WebGPU.csproj
NuGetSixLabors.Fonts3.1.0src/ImageSharp.Drawing/ImageSharp.Drawing.csproj
NuGetSixLabors.ImageSharp4.1.0src/ImageSharp.Drawing/ImageSharp.Drawing.csproj
NuGetSixLabors.PolygonClipper1.0.1src/ImageSharp.Drawing/ImageSharp.Drawing.csproj
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers3.11.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp4.14.0direct
NuGetSilk.NET.Windowing.Glfw2.23.0direct
NuGetSilk.NET.Windowing.Sdl2.23.0direct
NuGetSixLabors.Fonts3.1.0direct
NuGetSixLabors.ImageSharp4.1.0direct
NuGetSixLabors.PolygonClipper1.0.1direct
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetCommandLineParser2.9.1indirect
NuGetGeoJSON.Net—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.DotNet.RemoteExecutor—indirect
NuGetMoq—indirect
NuGetruntime.osx.10.10-x64.CoreCompat.System.Drawing—indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp—indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp3.119.2indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux.NoDependencies—indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp.Views.WindowsForms3.119.2indirect
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 10 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 8 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.