Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 14:09 UTC

WildernessLabs / Meadow.Foundation.MBus

An Open Source Library for Meter-Bus / M-Bus Communications

C#Apache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2023View on GitHub ↗

WildernessLabs/Meadow.Foundation.MBus holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (67/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (38/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

50
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Wilderness LabsOrganization
155 followers99 public repossince Oct 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetMeadow.Foundation.MBus2.5.0-30294 days agomeadowmeadow.founadtionm-busmeterbusmbus

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

58Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence2/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume3 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases21 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~92.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tag3.0.2-beta
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases92.9
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
49.2/80Total downloads54,616 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesMeadow.Foundation.MBus
dependents
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads54,616
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 50% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.5
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
27.6/30PR acceptance23/25 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 10/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs23
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.8/25Owner reach155 followers of WildernessLabs
25/25Track record99 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers155
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginWildernessLabs
public_repos99
account_age_days3,618
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on nuget
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 294 days ago
20/20Version history30 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesMeadow.Foundation.MBus
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish294

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
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?

39Weak · 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
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 10/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
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
0/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno data
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_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, SAST, 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
15.8/40Legible commit history19 of 64 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.297
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapSource/Devices/RelayMBus/PadPulsM2/Driver/PadPulsM2.csproj, Source/Devices/SchneiderElectric/IEM3135/Driver/IEM3135.csproj, Source/Driver/Meadow.MBus.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 64
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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_share0
toolchain_manifestsSource/Devices/RelayMBus/PadPulsM2/Driver/PadPulsM2.csproj, Source/Devices/SchneiderElectric/IEM3135/Driver/IEM3135.csproj, Source/Driver/Meadow.MBus.csproj, Source/Samples/MBus_Desktop_Sample/MBus_Desktop_Sample.csproj, Source/Samples/MBus_Feather_Sample/MBus_Feather_Sample.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/18 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes9,063
source_files_sampled18
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplessamples
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

0GitHub stars
5contributors
3commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
0open issues
package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 14:09 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsinternal error: internal error: Client.Repositories.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-15T14:09:44Z. Please include `B30C:1EBB8F:AD2C362:A91A9A2:6AA951A6` when reporting this issue.
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 10/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
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
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
n/aSASTinternal error: internal error: Client.Checks.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-15T14:09:44Z. Please include `B30C:1EBB8F:AD2C362:A91A9A2:6AA951A6` when reporting this issue.
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 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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 statisticsNuGet.