Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 12:27 UTC

coverlet-coverage / coverlet

Cross platform code coverage for .NET

C#MIT★ 3,166 stars⑂ 401 forkssince Jan 2018View on GitHub ↗
#code-coverage#dotnet-core#unittest#coverage#cross-platform#coverage-library#dotnet#coverlet#instrumentation#bytecode

coverlet-coverage/coverlet holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (87/100) and lowest on Security (54/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

89
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CoverletOrganization
25 followers2 public repossince May 2020

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

87Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 130 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year130
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year33

Release discipline

76Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 40 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 59 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~144.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count40
latest_release_tagv10.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release59
mean_days_between_releases144.1

Community & Adoption

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

87Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

88Excellent
How it's scored
56.8/60Stars — 3,166 stars
21.7/25Forks — 401 forks
9.1/15Watchers — 45 watchers
Inputs used
forks401
stars3,166
watchers45
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

64Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 34% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.341

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
41.6/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
24.3/30PR acceptance — 684/845 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs684
open_issues10
closed_issues1,064
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.991
closed_unmerged_prs161
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
10.2/25Owner reach — 25 followers of coverlet-coverage
15.5/25Track record — 2 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers25
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_logincoverlet-coverage
public_repos2
account_age_days2,264
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 — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 28 out of 28 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 — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscode-coverage, dotnet-core, unittest, coverage, cross-platform, coverage-library, dotnet, coverlet, instrumentation, bytecode
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?

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

54Moderate
How it's scored
5.2/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 28 out of 28 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

74Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.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_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes20,107
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate
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 — devcontainer, Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/276 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes82,486
source_files_sampled276
oversized_source_files1

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, samples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

3,166GitHub stars
100contributors
130commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
40releases
2bus factor
10open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 12:27 UTC

7Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
10CI-Tests28 out of 28 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 1/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 25 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
9SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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 58

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 58 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet.Diagnostics.Windows—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector10.0.0indirect
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild10.0.0indirect
NuGetcoverlet.MTP—indirect
NuGetLinqKit.Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces10.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces8.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Framework—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Locator—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection10.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyModel—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.FileSystemGlobbing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.4.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.5.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NETFramework.ReferenceAssemblies—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Sbom.Targets—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Platform—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Platform.MSBuild—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModel—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.DiagnosticsHub.BenchmarkDotNetDiagnosers—indirect
NuGetMono.Cecil—indirect
NuGetMoq—indirect
NuGetMoq4.20.72indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4indirect
NuGetNuGet.Frameworks—indirect
NuGetNuGet.Packaging—indirect
NuGetNuGet.Versioning—indirect
NuGetReportGenerator.Core—indirect
NuGetSystem.Buffers—indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Immutable—indirect
NuGetSystem.CommandLine—indirect
NuGetSystem.Linq.Async—indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory—indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Metadata—indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.AccessControl—indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Cryptography.Pkcs—indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Cryptography.Pkcs10.0.10indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json—indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json10.0.10indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions—indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions4.6.3indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.mtp-v2—indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.mtp-v23.2.2indirect
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 coverlet-coverage/coverlet. Read them side by side →

91ElectronNET/Electron.NET:electron: Build cross platform desktop apps with ASP.NET Core (Razor Pages, MVC, Blazor).Excellent100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional98unoplatform/unoOpen-source platform for building cross-platform native Mobile, Web, Desktop, and Embedded apps from a single C#/XAML codebase. Work from any IDE/CLI with Hot Reload, Visual Designer, MCPs, and Skills built for modern .NET workflows. 200M+ NuGet downloads.Exceptional98open-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.Exceptional97microsoft/testfxThis repository holds the source code of Microsoft.Testing.Platform (MTP), a lightweight alternative to VSTest, as well as MSTest adapter and framework.Exceptional96reactiveui/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.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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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