Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-23 07:58 UTC

dailydevops / arguments

Provides a set of backward compatible `throw` helper methods, which have been added in previous .NET versions.

C#MIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2023View on GitHub ↗

dailydevops/arguments holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

9 followers23 public repossince Feb 2022

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
27.7/36Commit cadence40/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume455 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year455
human_commit_share0.1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year40

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases31 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~26 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count31
latest_release_tag3.2.224
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases26
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?

47Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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
How it's scored
54.4/80Total downloads173,715 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesNetEvolve.Arguments
dependents
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads173,715
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
27.6/30PR acceptance665/722 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs665
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs57
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
7.2/25Owner reach9 followers of dailydevops
18.9/25Track record23 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers9
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logindailydevops
public_repos23
account_age_days1,623
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history36 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesNetEvolve.Arguments
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests24 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotnet, guard, source-only
has_wikino
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?

65Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests24 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
4.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

72Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/blazor.instructions.md, .github/instructions/csharp.instructions.md, .github/instructions/decisions.instructions.md, .github/instructions/tsql.instructions.md, .github/instructions/wording.instructions.md, AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/blazor.instructions.md, .github/instructions/csharp.instructions.md, .github/instructions/decisions.instructions.md, .github/instructions/tsql.instructions.md, .github/instructions/wording.instructions.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,180
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapsrc/NetEvolve.Arguments/NetEvolve.Arguments.csproj, tests/NetEvolve.Arguments.Tests.Unit/NetEvolve.Arguments.Tests.Unit.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance90 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestssrc/NetEvolve.Arguments/NetEvolve.Arguments.csproj, tests/NetEvolve.Arguments.Tests.Unit/NetEvolve.Arguments.Tests.Unit.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.9
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/46 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes36,650
source_files_sampled46
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
455commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
31releases
1bus factor
0open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-23 07:57 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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
9CI-Tests24 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
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 5

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverageindirect
NuGetNetEvolve.Extensions.TUnitindirect
NuGetPolyfillindirect
NuGetTUnitindirect
NuGetVerify.TUnitindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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