Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 03:23 UTC

dotnet / TorchSharp

A .NET library that provides access to the library that powers PyTorch.

C#MIT★ 1,851 stars⑂ 228 forkssince Oct 2018View on GitHub ↗

dotnet/TorchSharp holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (90/100) and lowest on Vitality (48/100). It was last updated 69 days ago. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

.NET PlatformOrganization · verified domain
23,348 followers278 public repossince Oct 2014

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?

48Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 69 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
14.6/18Commit volume — 41 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year41
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push69
active_weeks_last_year14
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 67 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 209 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~73.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count67
latest_release_tagv0.106.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release209
mean_days_between_releases73.9
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?

83Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
53/60Stars — 1,851 stars
19.6/25Forks — 228 forks
9.8/15Watchers — 59 watchers
Inputs used
forks228
stars1,851
watchers59
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_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
64.2/80Total downloads — 1,524,735 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesTorchAudio, TorchSharp, TorchVision
dependents—
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads1,524,735
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?

90Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 25% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 51 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 24 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled51
top_contributor_share0.25
How it's scored
38.4/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
26.3/30PR acceptance — 642/731 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 14/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs642
open_issues60
closed_issues643
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.915
closed_unmerged_prs89
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 23,348 followers of dotnet
25/25Track record — 278 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers23,348
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logindotnet
public_repos278
account_age_days4,353

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 126 days ago
20/20Version history — 114 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesTorchAudio, TorchSharp, TorchVision
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish126

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslibtorch, mlnet, torchsharp, torchscript
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?

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 14/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 24 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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
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 — no data
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
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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_packages17
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 17 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.6/40Legible commit history — 63 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.63
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — pkg/FileRestitcher/FileRestitcher.Tests/FileRestitcher.Tests.csproj, pkg/FileRestitcher/FileRestitcher/FileRestitcher.csproj, src/Examples.Utils/Examples.Utils.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 17 of the last 100 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_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.17
toolchain_manifestspkg/FileRestitcher/FileRestitcher.Tests/FileRestitcher.Tests.csproj, pkg/FileRestitcher/FileRestitcher/FileRestitcher.csproj, src/Examples.Utils/Examples.Utils.csproj, src/Examples/Examples.csproj, src/TorchAudio/TorchAudio.csproj, src/TorchSharp/TorchSharp.csproj, src/TorchVision/TorchVision.csproj, test/TorchSharpTest.WithCudaBinaries/TorchSharpTest.WithCudaBinaries.csproj, test/TorchSharpTest/TorchSharpTest.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
51.8/55Manageable file sizes — 31/535 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes395,339
source_files_sampled535
oversized_source_files31
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, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
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

1,851GitHub stars
51contributors
41commits, last 12 months
69days since last push
67releases
4bus factor
60open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 228 ⇿
0Stars
228Forks
67Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

0408012016020024022332018-102022-092026-08
Major 0Minor 12Patch 55

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 03:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests1 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 14/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Metadata6.0.0src/Examples.Utils/Examples.Utils.csproj
NuGetSharpZipLib1.4.0src/Examples.Utils/Examples.Utils.csproj
NuGetSixLabors.ImageSharp3.1.11src/Examples.Utils/Examples.Utils.csproj
NuGetGoogle.Protobuf3.21.9src/TorchSharp/TorchSharp.csproj
NuGetSharpZipLib1.4.0src/TorchSharp/TorchSharp.csproj
NuGetSkiaSharp2.88.6src/TorchSharp/TorchSharp.csproj
NuGetSkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux.NoDependencies2.88.6src/TorchSharp/TorchSharp.csproj
NuGetSystem.Memory4.5.5src/TorchSharp/TorchSharp.csproj
NuGetSkiaSharp2.88.6src/TorchVision/TorchVision.csproj
NuGetSkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux.NoDependencies2.88.6src/TorchVision/TorchVision.csproj
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetGoogle.Protobuf3.21.9direct
NuGetSharpZipLib1.4.0direct
NuGetSixLabors.ImageSharp3.1.11direct
NuGetSkiaSharp2.88.6direct
NuGetSkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux.NoDependencies2.88.6direct
NuGetSystem.Memory4.5.5direct
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Metadata6.0.0direct
NuGetcoverlet.collector3.0.2indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector3.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Net.Http2.2.29indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk16.9.4indirect
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Tensors0.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Tensors7.0.0-rtm.22518.5indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe4.5.2indirect
NuGetSystem.ValueTuple4.5.0indirect
NuGetxunit2.4.2indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.4.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 17 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.