Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 04:27 UTC

darakeon / dk-lib

Library of generic helpers

Gherkin · C# · HTMLApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2017View on GitHub ↗

darakeon/dk-lib holds a health index of 36 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Security (66/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

36
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.

36
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 41 is calibrated to 36 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Dara KeonPersonal account
27 followers57 public repossince Dec 2015

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?

47Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
17.2/18Commit volume — 82 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year82
human_commit_share0.37
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no 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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescircleci.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

33At Risk · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.859
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
20/30PR acceptance — 141/211 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs141
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs70
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.4/25Owner reach — 27 followers of darakeon
24.8/25Track record — 57 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers27
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindarakeon
public_repos57
account_age_days3,969
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

36Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
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
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslibrary, csharp
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?

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 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 — no data
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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 — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated11
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive7
scorecard_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Code-Review, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18.5/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: NHibernate 5.2.6 (moderate 5.9)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
34.9/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 834 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages31
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 31 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 37 of 37 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Source/Eml.Tests/Eml.Tests.csproj, Source/Eml/Eml.csproj, Source/MVC/MVC.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 63 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsSource/Eml.Tests/Eml.Tests.csproj, Source/Eml/Eml.csproj, Source/MVC/MVC.csproj, Source/NHibernate/NHibernate.csproj, Source/TwoFactorAuth/TwoFactorAuth.csproj, Source/Util.Tests/Util.Tests.csproj, Source/Util/Util.csproj, Source/XML/XML.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.63
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Gherkin without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/78 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGherkin
largest_source_bytes12,764
source_files_sampled78
oversized_source_files0
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
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

0GitHub stars
2contributors
82commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
1open issues
—package ecosystems

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 · 2026-10-21 04:27 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
10CI-Tests21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
n/aCode-ReviewFound no human activity in the last 21 changesets
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 24
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.11.0Source/Eml.Tests/Eml.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit5.0.0Source/Eml.Tests/Eml.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.3.1Source/Eml.Tests/Eml.Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector10.1.0Source/Eml.Tests/Eml.Tests.csproj
NuGetSpecFlow3.9.74Source/Eml.Tests/Eml.Tests.csproj
NuGetSpecFlow.NUnit3.9.74Source/Eml.Tests/Eml.Tests.csproj
NuGetSpecFlow.Tools.MsBuild.Generation3.9.74Source/Eml.Tests/Eml.Tests.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4Source/Eml/Eml.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.NewtonsoftJson9.0.20Source/MVC/MVC.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4Source/MVC/MVC.csproj
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common10.0.12Source/MVC/MVC.csproj
NuGetFluentNHibernate3.5.0Source/NHibernate/NHibernate.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions10.0.11Source/NHibernate/NHibernate.csproj
NuGetNHibernate5.7.0Source/NHibernate/NHibernate.csproj
NuGetSystem.Net.Http4.3.4Source/NHibernate/NHibernate.csproj
NuGetSystem.Text.RegularExpressions4.3.1Source/NHibernate/NHibernate.csproj
NuGetJetBrains.Annotations2026.2.0Source/TwoFactorAuth/TwoFactorAuth.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.6.0Source/Util.Tests/Util.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit5.0.0Source/Util.Tests/Util.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.3.1Source/Util.Tests/Util.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit.Analyzers4.14.0Source/Util.Tests/Util.Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector10.1.0Source/Util.Tests/Util.Tests.csproj
NuGetBCrypt.Net-Core1.6.0Source/Util/Util.csproj
NuGetBouncyCastle.NetCore2.2.1Source/Util/Util.csproj
All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 23 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBCrypt.Net-Core1.6.0direct
NuGetBouncyCastle.NetCore2.2.1direct
NuGetcoverlet.collector10.1.0direct
NuGetFluentNHibernate2.1.2direct
NuGetFluentNHibernate3.5.0direct
NuGetJetBrains.Annotations2019.1.3direct
NuGetJetBrains.Annotations2026.2.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.NewtonsoftJson9.0.20direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions10.0.11direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.11.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.6.0direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4direct
NuGetNHibernate5.2.6direct
NuGetNHibernate5.7.0direct
NuGetNUnit5.0.0direct
NuGetNUnit.Analyzers4.14.0direct
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.3.1direct
NuGetSpecFlow3.9.74direct
NuGetSpecFlow.NUnit3.9.74direct
NuGetSpecFlow.Tools.MsBuild.Generation3.9.74direct
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common10.0.12direct
NuGetSystem.Net.Http4.3.4direct
NuGetSystem.Text.RegularExpressions4.3.1direct
NuGetAntlr3.Runtime3.5.1indirect
NuGetIesi.Collections4.0.4indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNet.Mvc5.2.7indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNet.Razor3.2.7indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNet.WebPages3.2.7indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Web.Infrastructure1.0.0.0indirect
NuGetRemotion.Linq2.2.0indirect
NuGetRemotion.Linq.EagerFetching2.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 31 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
NHibernate5.2.6directmoderate15.5.2

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.