Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-23 00:55 UTC

brenpike / Chatter

C#MIT★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jul 2020View on GitHub ↗

brenpike/Chatter holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (26/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
overall / 100
Weak

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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Brennan PikePersonal account
2 followers5 public repossince Nov 2013

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?

41Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
17/18Commit volume77 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year77
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
0/27Ships releasesno releases published
0/36Release recencyno releases
0/27Release cadenceno releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

26At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars3 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
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?

41Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 94% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth4 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.938
How it's scored
34.1/42Issue resolution81% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance158/165 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs158
open_issues18
closed_issues77
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.811
closed_unmerged_prs7
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
3.4/25Owner reach2 followers of brenpike
17.7/25Track record5 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginbrenpike
public_repos5
account_age_days4,674
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows15 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnet-core, webapi, microservices, message-bus, message-broker, messaging, distributed-systems
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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_packages38
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 38 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.

81Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history96 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.96
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,503
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapsrc/Chatter.CQRS/src/Chatter.CQRS/Chatter.CQRS.csproj, src/Chatter.CQRS/tests/Chatter.CQRS.Tests.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.Auth/src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.Auth/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.Auth.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice25 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackages.lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.25
toolchain_manifestssrc/Chatter.CQRS/src/Chatter.CQRS/Chatter.CQRS.csproj, src/Chatter.CQRS/tests/Chatter.CQRS.Tests.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.Auth/src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.Auth/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.Auth.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.Auth/tests/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.Auth.Tests.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus/src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus/tests/Chatter.MessageBrokers.AzureServiceBus.Tests.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.RabbitMQ/src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.RabbitMQ/Chatter.MessageBrokers.RabbitMQ.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.RabbitMQ/tests/Chatter.MessageBrokers.RabbitMQ.Tests.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.Cosmos/src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.Cosmos/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.Cosmos.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.Cosmos/tests/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.Cosmos.Tests.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.EntityFramework/src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.EntityFramework/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.EntityFramework.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.EntityFramework/tests/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Reliability.EntityFramework.Tests.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.SqlServiceBroker/src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.SqlServiceBroker/Chatter.MessageBrokers.SqlServiceBroker.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers.SqlServiceBroker/tests/Chatter.MessageBrokers.SqlServiceBroker.Tests.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers/src/Chatter.MessageBrokers/Chatter.MessageBrokers.csproj, src/Chatter.MessageBrokers/tests/Chatter.MessageBrokers.Tests.csproj, src/Chatter.SqlChangeFeed/src/Chatter.SqlChangeFeed/Chatter.SqlChangeFeed.csproj, src/Chatter.SqlChangeFeed/tests/Chatter.SqlChangeFeed.Tests.csproj, tests/Chatter.Testing.Core.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes2/688 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes83,614
source_files_sampled688
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

3GitHub stars
4contributors
77commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
18open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-23 00:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 38

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 38 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAzure.Identity1.21.0indirect
NuGetAzure.Messaging.ServiceBus7.20.1indirect
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild10.0.1indirect
NuGetFluentAssertions7.2.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Cosmos3.61.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Data.SqlClient7.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore10.0.8indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore8.0.27indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory10.0.8indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory8.0.27indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational8.0.27indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite8.0.27indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer8.0.27indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration10.0.8indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration8.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions10.0.8indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions8.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting8.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions8.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.6.0indirect
NuGetMoq4.20.72indirect
NuGetRabbitMQ.Client7.2.1indirect
NuGetScrutor3.3.0indirect
NuGetTestcontainers4.12.0indirect
NuGetTestcontainers.CosmosDb4.12.0indirect
NuGetTestcontainers.MsSql4.12.0indirect
NuGetTestcontainers.RabbitMq4.12.0indirect
NuGetTestcontainers.ServiceBus4.12.0indirect
NuGetxunit2.9.3indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 38 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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