Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-09 10:59 UTC

bradymholt / cron-expression-descriptor

A .NET library that converts cron expressions into human readable descriptions.

C#MIT★ 1,109 stars⑂ 196 forkssince Feb 2012View on GitHub ↗

bradymholt/cron-expression-descriptor holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (78/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated 32 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Brady HoltPersonal account
243 followers102 public repossince Apr 2011@ynab

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetCronExpressionDescriptor2.51.0-8132 days agocronschedulequartzquartz.netexpression

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

64Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 32 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
13.5/18Commit volume31 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained25 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year31
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push32
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases77 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 72 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~89 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count77
latest_release_tag2.48.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release72
mean_days_between_releases89
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?

78Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
49.4/60Stars1,109 stars
19.1/25Forks196 forks
7.7/15Watchers25 watchers
Inputs used
forks196
stars1,109
watchers25
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
74.8/80Total downloads15,842,182 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesCronExpressionDescriptor
dependents
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads15,842,182
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 89% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth49 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled49
top_contributor_share0.889
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
26.3/30PR acceptance101/115 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs101
open_issues0
closed_issues89
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs14
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
17.2/25Owner reach243 followers of bradymholt
25/25Track record102 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers243
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginbradymholt
public_repos102
account_age_days5,580
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 32 days ago
20/20Version history81 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesCronExpressionDescriptor
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish32

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://bradymholt.github.io/cron-expression-descriptor/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscron, cron-expression, cron-libraries, quartz, human-readable-descriptions, nuget, c-sharp
has_wikino
homepagehttps://bradymholt.github.io/cron-expression-descriptor/
docs_sitehttps://bradymholt.github.io/cron-expression-descriptor/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5Maintained25 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages9
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 9 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.7/40Legible commit history22 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.22
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapdemo/Demo.csproj, lib/CronExpressionDescriptor.csproj, test/Test.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifestsdemo/Demo.csproj, lib/CronExpressionDescriptor.csproj, test/Test.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
53.7/55Manageable file sizes1/43 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes222,435
source_files_sampled43
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

1,109GitHub stars
49contributors
31commits, last 12 months
32days since last push
77releases
1bus factor
0open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 196 ⇿
0Stars
196Forks
77Releases

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.

0408012016020018982012-022019-052026-07
Major 1Minor 41Patch 12

Each point covers 14 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-09 10:58 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained25 commit(s) and 2 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 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly3.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly.Build3.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly.DevServer3.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.WebUtilities2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Localization3.1.4indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk15.8.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Net.Http.Json3.2.0indirect
NuGetxunit2.4.0indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.4.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 9 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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