Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 12:51 UTC

VerifyTests / Verify

Verify is a snapshot testing tool that simplifies the assertion of complex data models and documents.

C#MIT★ 3,455 stars⑂ 185 forkssince Nov 2019View on GitHub ↗
#snapshot-testing#testing#assertion-library#snapshot

VerifyTests/Verify holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (100/100) and lowest on Security (51/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

VerifyOrganization
84 followers74 public repossince May 2020

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

100Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 842 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year842
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag31.24.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases5.6
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?

75Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

83Excellent
How it's scored
57.4/60Stars — 3,455 stars
18.9/25Forks — 185 forks
6.7/15Watchers — 17 watchers
Inputs used
forks185
stars3,455
watchers17
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 (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code 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_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 85% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 82 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled82
top_contributor_share0.851

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good
How it's scored
41.7/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
26.9/30PR acceptance — 1,139/1,268 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1,139
open_issues3
closed_issues358
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.992
closed_unmerged_prs129
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

86Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
13.9/25Owner reach — 84 followers of VerifyTests
25/25Track record — 74 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers84
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginVerifyTests
public_repos74
account_age_days2,262
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

50Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssnapshot-testing, testing, assertion-library, snapshot
has_wikino
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?

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 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
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — 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_filesclaude.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes13,107
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

18Critical
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated 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_testsno
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)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes — 1/743 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes119,786
source_files_sampled743
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

3,455GitHub stars
82contributors
842commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
3open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 12:50 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 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 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 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
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 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetArgon—indirect
NuGetArgon0.22.0indirect
NuGetArgon.FSharp—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetDiffEngine—indirect
NuGetDiffEngine15.5.3indirect
NuGetExpecto—indirect
NuGetExpecto11.1.0indirect
NuGetFixie—indirect
NuGetFixie3.4.0indirect
NuGetFixie4.2.0indirect
NuGetFixie.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetFSharp.Core—indirect
NuGetMarkdownSnippets.MsBuild—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces8.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.7.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Sbom.Targets—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter4.3.0indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework3.6.2indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework4.3.0indirect
NuGetNUnit—indirect
NuGetNUnit4.2.2indirect
NuGetNUnit4.6.1indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.2.0indirect
NuGetPolyfill—indirect
NuGetProjectDefaults—indirect
NuGetProjectFiles—indirect
NuGetPublicApiGenerator—indirect
NuGetSimpleInfoName—indirect
NuGetSimpleInfoName3.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common—indirect
NuGetSystem.IO.Hashing8.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory—indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory4.5.5indirect
NuGetTextCopy—indirect
NuGetTUnit—indirect
NuGetTUnit1.58.0indirect
NuGetTUnit.Core—indirect
NuGetTUnit.Core0.1.1065indirect
NuGetVerifyversionindirect
NuGetVerify.Expecto31.21.0indirect
NuGetVerify.Fixie31.21.0indirect
NuGetVerify.MSTest31.21.0indirect
NuGetVerify.NUnit31.21.0indirect
NuGetVerify.TUnit31.21.0indirect
NuGetVerify.XunitV331.21.0indirect
NuGetxunit.v3—indirect
NuGetxunit.v33.2.2indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.extensibility.core—indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.extensibility.core0.5.0-pre.27indirect
NuGetYoloDev.Expecto.TestSdk—indirect
NuGetYoloDev.Expecto.TestSdk0.16.0indirect
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 VerifyTests/Verify. Read them side by side →

92syrupy-project/syrupy:pancakes: The sweeter pytest snapshot pluginExcellent95jestjs/jestDelightful JavaScript Testing.Exceptional91streamich/memfsNode.js "fs" and browser "File System API" adapters and in-memory implementations 👍Excellent90mitsuhiko/instaA snapshot testing library for rustExcellent99App-vNext/PollyPolly is a .NET resilience and transient-fault-handling library that allows developers to express policies such as Retry, Circuit Breaker, Timeout, Bulkhead Isolation, and Fallback in a fluent and thread-safe manner. From version 6.0.1, Polly targets .NET Standard 1.1 and 2.0+.Exceptional99microsoft/playwrightPlaywright is a framework for Web Testing and Automation. It allows testing Chromium, Firefox and WebKit with a single API. Exceptional

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.