Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 20:25 UTC

blehnen / DotNetWorkQueue

A work queue for dot.net with SQL server, SQLite, LiteDB, Redis and PostGreSQL backends

C#Custom license★ 107 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Oct 2015View on GitHub ↗
#dotnet#dotnet-core#workqueue#redis-queue#job-scheduler

blehnen/DotNetWorkQueue holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (46/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

blehnenPersonal account
7 followers12 public repossince Oct 2015

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?

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,006 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,006
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year21

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 68 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~8.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count68
latest_release_tagv0.9.43
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases8.6

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

47Weak
How it's scored
32.9/60Stars — 107 stars
9.8/25Forks — 16 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks16
stars107
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code 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_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

46Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.997

Issue & PR responsiveness

87Excellent
How it's scored
38.7/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
26.9/30PR acceptance — 129/144 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs129
open_issues5
closed_issues58
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.921
closed_unmerged_prs15
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

46Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.5/25Owner reach — 7 followers of blehnen
20.1/25Track record — 12 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers7
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginblehnen
public_repos12
account_age_days3,912
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good
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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotnet, dotnet-core, workqueue, redis-queue, job-scheduler
has_wikiyes
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?

61Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

61Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 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
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 10/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.1

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.

72Good · 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_bytes8,912
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

60Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
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. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/2,298 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes54,045
source_files_sampled2,298
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

107GitHub stars
3contributors
1,006commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
68releases
1bus factor
5open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 20:25 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 10/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
7SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAutoFixture—indirect
NuGetAutoFixture.AutoNSubstitute—indirect
NuGetbunit—indirect
NuGetCompareNETObjects—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild—indirect
NuGetCronExpressionDescriptor—indirect
NuGetCronos—indirect
NuGetDotNetWorkQueue.Aq.ExpressionJsonSerializer—indirect
NuGetDotNetWorkQueue.TaskScheduling.Distributed.TaskScheduler—indirect
NuGetGuerrillaNtp—indirect
NuGetLiteDB—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.TestHost—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Data.SqlClient—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Http—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.IO.RecyclableMemoryStream—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Playwright—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.Retry—indirect
NuGetMsgPack.Cli—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework—indirect
NuGetMudBlazor—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
NuGetNpgsql—indirect
NuGetNSubstitute—indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry—indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol—indirect
NuGetPolly5.3.1indirect
NuGetPolly.Core—indirect
NuGetSimpleInjector—indirect
NuGetStackExchange.Redis—indirect
NuGetSwashbuckle.AspNetCore—indirect
NuGetSystem.Data.SQLite.Core—indirect
NuGetSystem.Data.SQLite.Core1.0.106.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource—indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Cryptography.Xml—indirect
NuGetTynamix.ObjectFiller—indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—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 blehnen/DotNetWorkQueue. Read them side by side →

98open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contribThis repository contains set of components extending functionality of the OpenTelemetry .NET SDK. Instrumentation libraries, exporters, and other components can find their home here.Exceptional96microsoft/perfviewPerfView is a CPU and memory performance-analysis toolExceptional96reactiveui/refitThe automatic type-safe REST library for .NET Core, Xamarin and .NET. Heavily inspired by Square's Retrofit library, Refit turns your REST API into a live interface.Exceptional95bitwarden/serverBitwarden infrastructure/backend (API, database, Docker, etc).Exceptional94riok/mapperlyA .NET source generator for generating object mappings. No runtime reflection.Exceptional94dotnet/core.NET news, announcements, release notes, and more!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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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