Software health reportschema 0.17.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 08:07 UTC

axuno / MailMergeLib

MailMergeLib is a mail message client library which provides comfortable mail merge capabilities for text, inline images and attachments, as well as good throughput and fault tolerance for sending mail messages.

C#MIT★ 114 stars⑂ 32 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryhow this is determined

#smtp #mime #mail #email #merge #template #netcore #netstandard #dotnet-framework

axuno/MailMergeLib holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

axunoOrganization

10 followers8 public repossince Apr 2016

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
NuGet	MailMergeLib	5.16.0	-	26	0 days ago	smtp mime mail email merge template netcore netstandard netframework c#

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

53Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
3.5/36	Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
10.6/18	Commit volume — 14 commits in the last year
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

commits_last_year	14
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	5

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 27 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~124.2 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	27
latest_release_tag	v5.16.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	124.2

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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

51Moderate

How it's scored

33.3/60	Stars — 114 stars
12.4/25	Forks — 32 forks
5.6/15	Watchers — 11 watchers

Inputs used

forks	32
stars	114
watchers	11
growth_state	organic
growth_factor_pct	100

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

68Good

How it's scored

54.4/80	Total downloads — 171,814 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	MailMergeLib
dependents	—
ecosystems	nuget
total_downloads	171,814
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?

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

25At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
5.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	4
top_contributor_share	0.976

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30	PR acceptance — 39/39 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	39
open_issues	0
closed_issues	25
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	0
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

70Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
7.5/25	Owner reach — 10 followers of axuno
18.9/25	Track record — 8 public repos, account ~10 yr old

Inputs used

followers	10
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	axuno
public_repos	8
account_age_days	3,738

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on nuget
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 26 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	MailMergeLib
ecosystems	nuget
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

36Weak

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
6/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 9 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	smtp, mime, mail, email, merge, template, netcore, netstandard, dotnet-framework
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0.8/2.5	CI-Tests — 11 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
2.2/7.5	Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

45Weak

How it's scored

8.9/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 6 affected: AngleSharp 0.9.11 (moderate 6.9), AngleSharp 0.9.9.2 (moderate 6.9), MailKit 2.0.4 (moderate 6.5), +3 more
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
25.2/40	No advisories left outstanding — 4 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 137 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	12
affected_packages	9
assessed_packages	36
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 2, moderate 7
direct_affected_packages	6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 36 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

24At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
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)

13Critical

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/72 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C#
largest_source_bytes	43,449
source_files_sampled	72
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

114GitHub stars

4contributors

14commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

27releases

1bus factor

0open issues

—package ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 114 ★ / 0 ⇿

114Stars

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.

Each point covers 9 days.

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 · 2026-07-21 08:07 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
3	CI-Tests	11 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
3	Maintained	4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 17

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
NuGet	Microsoft.CSharp	`4.7.0`	Src/MailMergeLib.Tests/MailMergeLib.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.DotNet.PlatformAbstractions	`3.1.6`	Src/MailMergeLib.Tests/MailMergeLib.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyModel	`9.0.9`	Src/MailMergeLib.Tests/MailMergeLib.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.0.0`	Src/MailMergeLib.Tests/MailMergeLib.Tests.csproj
NuGet	netDumbster	`3.1.1`	Src/MailMergeLib.Tests/MailMergeLib.Tests.csproj
NuGet	NUnit	`4.4.0`	Src/MailMergeLib.Tests/MailMergeLib.Tests.csproj
NuGet	NUnit.Analyzers	`4.10.0`	Src/MailMergeLib.Tests/MailMergeLib.Tests.csproj
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`5.1.0`	Src/MailMergeLib.Tests/MailMergeLib.Tests.csproj
NuGet	System.ValueTuple	`4.6.2`	Src/MailMergeLib.Tests/MailMergeLib.Tests.csproj
NuGet	AngleSharp	`1.5.2`	Src/MailMergeLib/MailMergeLib.csproj
NuGet	MailKit	`4.17.0`	Src/MailMergeLib/MailMergeLib.csproj
NuGet	MimeKit	`4.17.0`	Src/MailMergeLib/MailMergeLib.csproj
NuGet	SmartFormat.NET	`3.6.1`	Src/MailMergeLib/MailMergeLib.csproj
NuGet	YAXLib	`4.4.0`	Src/MailMergeLib/MailMergeLib.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub	`10.0.301`	Src/MailMergeLib/MailMergeLib.csproj
NuGet	System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager	`10.0.10`	Src/MailMergeLib/MailMergeLib.csproj
NuGet	System.Text.Encoding.Extensions	`4.3.0`	Src/MailMergeLib/MailMergeLib.csproj

All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 28 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
NuGet	AngleSharp	`0.9.11`	direct
NuGet	AngleSharp	`0.9.9.2`	direct
NuGet	AngleSharp	`1.5.2`	direct
NuGet	MailKit	`2.0.4`	direct
NuGet	MailKit	`2.1.0.3`	direct
NuGet	MailKit	`4.17.0`	direct
NuGet	Microsoft.CSharp	`4.7.0`	direct
NuGet	Microsoft.DotNet.PlatformAbstractions	`3.1.6`	direct
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyModel	`9.0.9`	direct
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.0.0`	direct
NuGet	Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub	`10.0.301`	direct
NuGet	MimeKit	`2.0.4`	direct
NuGet	MimeKit	`2.1.0`	direct
NuGet	MimeKit	`4.17.0`	direct
NuGet	netDumbster	`2.0.0.3`	direct
NuGet	netDumbster	`3.1.1`	direct
NuGet	NUnit	`3.11.0`	direct
NuGet	NUnit	`4.4.0`	direct
NuGet	NUnit.Analyzers	`4.10.0`	direct
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`3.11.2`	direct
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`5.1.0`	direct
NuGet	SmartFormat.NET	`2.3.1.1`	direct
NuGet	SmartFormat.NET	`3.6.1`	direct
NuGet	System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager	`10.0.10`	direct
NuGet	System.Text.Encoding.Extensions	`4.3.0`	direct
NuGet	System.ValueTuple	`4.6.2`	direct
NuGet	YAXLib	`2.15.0`	direct
NuGet	YAXLib	`4.4.0`	direct
NuGet	BouncyCastle	`1.8.4`	indirect
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`11.0.2`	indirect
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`12.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	System.Collections.Specialized	`4.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.Data.Common	`4.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.IO.FileSystem	`4.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.Runtime	`4.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.Threading.Thread	`4.3.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 9

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 36 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 9 carry known advisories, of which 6 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
Newtonsoft.Json	`11.0.2`	indirect	high	1	`13.0.1`
Newtonsoft.Json	`12.0.1`	indirect	high	1	`13.0.1`
AngleSharp	`0.9.11`	direct	moderate	1	`1.5.0`
AngleSharp	`0.9.9.2`	direct	moderate	1	`1.5.0`
MailKit	`2.0.4`	direct	moderate	1	`4.16.0`
MailKit	`2.1.0.3`	direct	moderate	1	`4.16.0`
MimeKit	`2.0.4`	direct	moderate	1	`4.15.1`
MimeKit	`2.1.0`	direct	moderate	1	`4.15.1`
BouncyCastle	`1.8.4`	indirect	moderate	4	`2.3.1`

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.

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 v0.17.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records