Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 14:15 UTC

VahidN / EFCoreSecondLevelCacheInterceptor

EF Core Second Level Cache Interceptor

C#Apache-2.0★ 964 stars⑂ 105 forkssince Feb 2020View on GitHub ↗
#aspnetcore#entity-framework#efcore#entityframework#entity-framework-core#ef-core

VahidN/EFCoreSecondLevelCacheInterceptor holds a health index of 11 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (69/100) and lowest on Security (10/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

11
overall / 100
Critical

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.

11
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Vahid NasiriPersonal account
1,180 followers79 public repossince May 2011

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?

62Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence — 16/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18Commit volume — 45 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 28 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year45
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year16

Release discipline

48Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 81 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 877 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~14 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count81
latest_release_tag4.2.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release877
mean_days_between_releases14
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?

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

73Good
How it's scored
48.4/60Stars — 964 stars
16.8/25Forks — 105 forks
7.6/15Watchers — 24 watchers
Inputs used
forks105
stars964
watchers24
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 (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

30At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.818

Issue & PR responsiveness

69Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
17.8/30PR acceptance — 70/118 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs70
open_issues0
closed_issues220
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs48
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
22.1/25Owner reach — 1,180 followers of VahidN
25/25Track record — 79 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,180
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginVahidN
public_repos79
account_age_days5,553
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

Engineering practices

64Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 2 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
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaspnetcore, entity-framework, efcore, entityframework, entity-framework-core, ef-core
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?

10Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

10Critical
How it's scored
3.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 — 28 commit(s) and 4 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
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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_aggregate5.2
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier10
security_posture_before_jurisdiction52
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

38Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

42Weak
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
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 2/246 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes71,561
source_files_sampled246
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

964GitHub stars
12contributors
45commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
81releases
1bus factor
0open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-17 14:14 UTC

5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests1 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained28 commit(s) and 4 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
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
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 57

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAsyncKeyedLock—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetCacheManager.Core—indirect
NuGetCacheManager.Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory—indirect
NuGetCacheManager.Serialization.Json—indirect
NuGetCacheManager.StackExchange.Redis—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector—indirect
NuGetEasyCaching.Bus.Redis—indirect
NuGetEasyCaching.Core—indirect
NuGetEasyCaching.HybridCache—indirect
NuGetEasyCaching.InMemory—indirect
NuGetEasyCaching.Redis—indirect
NuGetEasyCaching.Serialization.MessagePack—indirect
NuGetEasyCaching.Serialization.SystemTextJson—indirect
NuGetEFCore.BulkExtensions—indirect
NuGetLamar.Microsoft.DependencyInjection—indirect
NuGetMessagePack—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer.NetTopologySuite—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Caching.Hybrid—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Caching.StackExchangeRedis—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.FileExtensions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Console—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Debug—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Options—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.SqlServer.Types—indirect
NuGetMoq—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework—indirect
NuGetMySql.EntityFrameworkCore—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
NuGetNpgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL—indirect
NuGetStackExchange.Redis—indirect
NuGetSystem.Data.SqlClient—indirect
NuGetSystem.IO.Hashing—indirect
NuGetZiggyCreatures.FusionCache—indirect
NuGetZiggyCreatures.FusionCache.Backplane.StackExchangeRedis—indirect
NuGetZiggyCreatures.FusionCache.Serialization.NewtonsoftJson—indirect
NuGetZiggyCreatures.FusionCache.Serialization.SystemTextJson—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 VahidN/EFCoreSecondLevelCacheInterceptor. Read them side by side →

84JerrettDavis/JD.Efcpt.BuildMSBuild/SDK NuGet package that automates database-first EF Core model generation from DACPAC, SQL projects, or live databases. .NET 8+Excellent87Tim-Maes/FacetGenerate DTOs, mappings, constructors and LINQ projections from your domain models.Excellent83marcominerva/TinyHelpersA collection of helper methods and classes for .NET that I use every day. I have packed them in a single library to avoid code duplication.Excellent80zzzprojects/System.Linq.Dynamic.CoreThe .NET Standard / .NET Core version from the System Linq Dynamic functionality.Excellent80EFNext/EntityFrameworkCore.ProjectablesProject over properties and functions in your linq queriesExcellent75artiomchi/FlexLabs.UpsertFlexLabs.Upsert is a library that brings UPSERT functionality to common database providers for Entity Framework in their respective native SQL syntaxGood

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.