# elanatframework/CodeBehind — health index 36/100 (Weak)

> Inspection of the public repository elanatframework/CodeBehind by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 36 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/elanatframework/CodeBehind
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/elanatframework/CodeBehind
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/elanatframework/CodeBehind/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/e/elanatframework/CodeBehind.svg
- Inspected: 2026-10-02
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 72/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 45/100 | Weak |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 19/100 | Critical |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 41/100 | Weak |
| Security | 16% | 34/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 22/100 | At Risk |

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

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | CodeBehind is a modern full-stack framework under ASP.NET Core. CodeBehind was developed by Elanat in 2023 and competes with Microsoft's default web frameworks (ASP.NET Core MVC and Razor Pages and Blazor). CodeBehind is an engineering masterpiece that simultaneously provides the possibility of development based on many patterns. |
| Classification | library |
| Homepage | https://elanat.net |
| Primary language | C# |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 79 |
| Forks | 6 |
| Created | 2023-06-30 |
| Last push | 2026-09-07 |
| Latest release | CodeBehind_4.7.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 78 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | aspx, code, code-behind, dll, dotnet, dotnet-core, dotnetcore, library, back-end, framework, backend, elanat, csharp, asp-net-core, full-stack |

## Vitality — 72/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 65/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 25 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 9 / 36 | 13/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 17 / 18 | 78 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 28 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 83/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 20 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 28 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~80.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 25 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 45/100 (Weak)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 30.7 / 60 | 79 stars |
| Forks | partial | 5.8 / 25 | 6 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 3.3 / 15 | 5 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 19/100 (Critical)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 13/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | not met | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 1.4 / 13.5 | 1 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 30 | no decided pull requests or no data |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 43/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 8.7 / 25 | 15 followers of elanatframework |
| Track record | partial | 15.5 / 25 | 9 public repos, account ~4 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 41/100 (Weak)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | no pull request found |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://elanat.net |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 15 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 34/100 (At Risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 34/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 2.5 | no pull request found |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | partial | 0.8 / 2.5 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 28 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 5 | no dependencies found |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | no SAST tool detected |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

## AI Readiness — 22/100 (At Risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | not met | 0 / 40 | 0 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 12/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | C# (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | no dependencies found |

### Code legibility for models — 89/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | C# (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 44 / 55 | 4/20 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

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

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt