Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-25 04:06 UTC

chalk-ai / chalk-csharp

C# client library for Chalk feature platform

C#No license detected★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗

chalk-ai/chalk-csharp holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (78/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (26/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

57
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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ChalkOrganization · verified domain
109 followers73 public repossince Jan 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetChalk.Client1.0.4-50 days agochalkfeaturesmachine-learningai

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
12.6/18Commit volume — 24 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year24
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~54.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv1.0.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases54.4

Community & Adoption

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

26At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53.1/80Total downloads — 130,110 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesChalk.Client
dependents—
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads130,110
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?

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 44% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.44
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 6/6 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs6
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
14.7/25Owner reach — 109 followers of chalk-ai
22.4/25Track record — 73 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers109
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginchalk-ai
public_repos73
account_age_days1,710

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 5 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesChalk.Client
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
2.2/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_aggregate3.7

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages10
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 10 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.4/40Legible commit history — 18 of 25 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.72
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Chalk.Client.Tests/Chalk.Client.Tests.csproj, Chalk.Client/Chalk.Client.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 25 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.16
toolchain_manifestsChalk.Client.Tests/Chalk.Client.Tests.csproj, Chalk.Client/Chalk.Client.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/26 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes39,269
source_files_sampled26
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
7contributors
24commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
4releases
2bus factor
0open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-25 04:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
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
0Licenselicense file not detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.8.0Chalk.Client.Tests/Chalk.Client.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit3.14.0Chalk.Client.Tests/Chalk.Client.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter4.5.0Chalk.Client.Tests/Chalk.Client.Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.0Chalk.Client.Tests/Chalk.Client.Tests.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3Chalk.Client.Tests/Chalk.Client.Tests.csproj
NuGetApache.Arrow15.0.2Chalk.Client/Chalk.Client.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3Chalk.Client/Chalk.Client.csproj
NuGetGrpc.Net.Client2.59.0Chalk.Client/Chalk.Client.csproj
NuGetGoogle.Protobuf3.25.1Chalk.Client/Chalk.Client.csproj
NuGetGrpc.Tools2.59.0Chalk.Client/Chalk.Client.csproj
NuGetYamlDotNet15.1.0Chalk.Client/Chalk.Client.csproj
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetApache.Arrow15.0.2direct
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.0direct
NuGetGoogle.Protobuf3.25.1direct
NuGetGrpc.Net.Client2.59.0direct
NuGetGrpc.Tools2.59.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.8.0direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3direct
NuGetNUnit3.14.0direct
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter4.5.0direct
NuGetYamlDotNet15.1.0direct
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 10 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 — NuGet.