Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-25 06:38 UTC

getbrevo / brevo-csharp

C#MIT★ 15 stars⑂ 6 forkssince May 2023View on GitHub ↗

getbrevo/brevo-csharp holds a health index of 44 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (59/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (27/100). It was last updated 12 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

44
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.

44
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 46 is calibrated to 44 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BrevoOrganization · verified domain
55 followers11 public repossince Apr 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetbrevo_csharp1.1.3-50 days agobrevosdkswaggerapicsharpc#

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

49Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 12 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
7.6/18Commit volume6 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year6
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push12
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases4 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 192 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~231.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tag1.1.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release192
mean_days_between_releases231.7
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
18.6/60Stars15 stars
5.8/25Forks6 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars15
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61/80Total downloads745,137 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesbrevo_csharp
dependents
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads745,137
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 83% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.833
How it's scored
6/42Issue resolution14% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance4/4 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs4
open_issues12
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.143
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
12.6/25Owner reach55 followers of getbrevo
14.6/25Track record11 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers55
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logingetbrevo
public_repos11
account_age_days1,229

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history5 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbrevo_csharp
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

27At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages5
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 5 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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapsrc/brevo_csharp/brevo_csharp.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifestssrc/brevo_csharp/brevo_csharp.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
52.5/55Manageable file sizes23/508 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes416,785
source_files_sampled508
oversized_source_files23

Key facts

15GitHub stars
2contributors
6commits, last 12 months
12days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
12open 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 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks
3Releases

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.

123456612024-042025-062026-07
Major 0Minor 1Patch 2

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-25 06:37 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 3/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetFubarCoder.RestSharp.Portable.Core4.0.8src/brevo_csharp/brevo_csharp.csproj
NuGetFubarCoder.RestSharp.Portable.HttpClient4.0.8src/brevo_csharp/brevo_csharp.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0src/brevo_csharp/brevo_csharp.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3src/brevo_csharp/brevo_csharp.csproj
NuGetJsonSubTypes2.0.1src/brevo_csharp/brevo_csharp.csproj
All dependencies 5

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetFubarCoder.RestSharp.Portable.Core4.0.8direct
NuGetFubarCoder.RestSharp.Portable.HttpClient4.0.8direct
NuGetJsonSubTypes2.0.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3direct
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 5 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 statisticsNuGet.