Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 20:34 UTC

aspnet / LibraryManager

C#MIT★ 483 stars⑂ 92 forkssince Mar 2017View on GitHub ↗
#visual-studio-extension#library-management#client-side

aspnet/LibraryManager holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (79/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated 20 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ASP.NETOrganization
1,385 followers112 public repossince Jan 2014

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?

52Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

52Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 20 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
11.7/18Commit volume — 19 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year19
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push20
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

52Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,886 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~57.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv1.0.163
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,886
mean_days_between_releases57.8
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

Popularity & adoption

68Good
How it's scored
43.5/60Stars — 483 stars
16.3/25Forks — 92 forks
8.4/15Watchers — 34 watchers
Inputs used
forks92
stars483
watchers34
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

78Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 30 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.463

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent
How it's scored
31.7/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
26.2/30PR acceptance — 397/454 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 17/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs397
open_issues88
closed_issues269
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.754
closed_unmerged_prs57
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

97Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
22.6/25Owner reach — 1,385 followers of aspnet
25/25Track record — 112 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,385
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginaspnet
public_repos112
account_age_days4,559
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

44Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsvisual-studio-extension, library-management, client-side
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

72Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

72Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 14 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 17/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate7.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

40Weak · 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)

46Weak
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
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/321 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes41,722
source_files_sampled321
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

483GitHub stars
30contributors
19commits, last 12 months
20days since last push
2releases
2bus factor
88open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10
7.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 20:33 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests14 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 17/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.All2.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Framework—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Tasks.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.CommandLineUtils.Sources—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Test.Apex.VisualStudio—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Editor—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Language.Intellisense—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Settings.15.0—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Shell.15.0—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Telemetry—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VSSDK.BuildTools—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WebTools.Languages.Css—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WebTools.Languages.Json—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WebTools.Languages.Json.Editor—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WebTools.Languages.Json.VS—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WebTools.Languages.Shared—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WebTools.Languages.Shared.Editor—indirect
NuGetMoq—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
NuGetNuGet.VisualStudio—indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Loader—indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Cryptography.ProtectedData—indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions—indirect
NuGetSystem.ValueTuple—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 aspnet/LibraryManager. Read them side by side →

94surveyjs/survey-pdfSupplementary component to the SurveyJS Form Library to download surveys as PDF files and generate editable PDF forms.Exceptional94vaadin/hillaBuild better business applications, faster. No more juggling REST endpoints or deciphering GraphQL queries. Hilla seamlessly connects Spring Boot and React to accelerate application development.Exceptional88riot/riotSimple and elegant component-based UI libraryExcellent84pubkey/broadcast-channel:satellite: BroadcastChannel to send data between different browser-tabs or nodejs-processes :satellite: + LeaderElection over the channels https://pubkey.github.io/broadcast-channel/Excellent84Microsoft/DevSkimDevSkim is a set of IDE plugins, language analyzers, and rules that provide security "linting" capabilities.Excellent83elbwalker/walkerOSOpen-source tag manager for developersExcellent

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.