Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 03:28 UTC

imperugo / StackExchange.Redis.Extensions

StackExchange.Redis.Extensions is a library that extends StackExchange.Redis, making it easier to work with Redis in .NET applications

C#MIT★ 627 stars⑂ 177 forkssince Jan 2015View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryhow this is determined

#redis #cache #caching #redis-cache #c-sharp #stackexchange #dotnet #redis-client

imperugo/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (82/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (52/100). It was last updated 39 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ugo LattanziPersonal account

123 followers72 public repossince Apr 2011@aspinsiders

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?

64Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

50Moderate

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 39 days ago
4.8/36	Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
17/18	Commit volume — 78 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	78
human_commit_share	0.98
days_since_last_push	39
active_weeks_last_year	7

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 18 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 43 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~246.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	18
latest_release_tag	v13.0.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	43
mean_days_between_releases	246.9

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?

82Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

73Good

How it's scored

45.4/60	Stars — 627 stars
18.7/25	Forks — 177 forks
8.8/15	Watchers — 39 watchers

Inputs used

forks	177
stars	627
watchers	39
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	18
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

52Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

37Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 78% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 44 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	44
top_contributor_share	0.785

Issue & PR responsiveness

59Moderate

How it's scored

40.9/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
8.7/30	PR acceptance — 102/350 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	102
open_issues	8
closed_issues	289
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.973
closed_unmerged_prs	248
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

63Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.1/25	Owner reach — 123 followers of imperugo
25/25	Track record — 72 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	123
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	imperugo
public_repos	72
account_age_days	5,618

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 8 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	redis, cache, caching, redis-cache, c-sharp, stackexchange, dotnet, redis-client
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

79Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

74Good

How it's scored

6.8/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 3/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	7.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	4
affected_packages	4
assessed_packages	82
unassessed_packages	10
affected_by_severity	high 2, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 82 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

72Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
37.6/40	Legible commit history — 69 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.704
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — samples/StackExchange.Redis.Samples.Web.Mvc/StackExchange.Redis.Samples.Web.Mvc.csproj, src/aspnet/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.AspNetCore/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.AspNetCore.csproj, src/compressors/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.Brotli/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.Brotli.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	samples/StackExchange.Redis.Samples.Web.Mvc/StackExchange.Redis.Samples.Web.Mvc.csproj, src/aspnet/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.AspNetCore/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.AspNetCore.csproj, src/compressors/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.Brotli/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.Brotli.csproj, src/compressors/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.GZip/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.GZip.csproj, src/compressors/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.LZ4/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.LZ4.csproj, src/compressors/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.Snappier/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.Snappier.csproj, src/compressors/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.ZstdSharp/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.ZstdSharp.csproj, src/core/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Core/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Core.csproj, src/serializers/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.MemoryPack/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.MemoryPack.csproj, src/serializers/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.MsgPack/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.MsgPack.csproj, src/serializers/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Newtonsoft/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Newtonsoft.csproj, src/serializers/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Protobuf/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Protobuf.csproj, src/serializers/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.ServiceStack/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.ServiceStack.csproj, src/serializers/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.System.Text.Json/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.System.Text.Json.csproj, src/serializers/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Utf8Json/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Utf8Json.csproj, tests/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.Tests/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Compression.Tests.csproj, tests/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Core.Tests/StackExchange.Redis.Extensions.Core.Tests.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.02

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/119 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C#
largest_source_bytes	46,036
source_files_sampled	119
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — samples

Inputs used

example_dirs	samples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

627GitHub stars

44contributors

78commits, last 12 months

39days since last push

18releases

1bus factor

8open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch npm package 'StackExchange.Redis.Extensions' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 177 ⇿

0Stars

177Forks

11Releases

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.

Major 1Minor 3Patch 7

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10

7.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 03:27 UTC

9	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
8	CI-Tests	6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1	Code-Review	Found 3/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10	Contributors	project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	26 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7	Vulnerabilities	3 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 92

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 92 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	ansi-escapes	`6.2.0`	indirect
npm	ansi-regex	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`6.2.1`	indirect
npm	braces	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	chalk	`5.3.0`	indirect
npm	cli-cursor	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	cli-truncate	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	colorette	`2.0.20`	indirect
npm	commander	`11.1.0`	indirect
npm	cross-spawn	`7.0.3`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.3.4`	indirect
npm	emoji-regex	`10.3.0`	indirect
npm	eventemitter3	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	execa	`8.0.1`	indirect
npm	fill-range	`7.1.1`	indirect
npm	get-east-asian-width	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	get-stream	`8.0.1`	indirect
npm	human-signals	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	husky	`8.0.3`	indirect
npm	is-fullwidth-code-point	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-fullwidth-code-point	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-number	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-stream	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	isexe	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	lilconfig	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	lint-staged	`15.2.0`	indirect
npm	listr2	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	log-update	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	merge-stream	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	micromatch	`4.0.5`	indirect
npm	mimic-fn	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	mimic-fn	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	npm-run-path	`5.2.0`	indirect
npm	onetime	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	onetime	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	path-key	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	path-key	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`2.3.2`	indirect
npm	pidtree	`0.6.0`	indirect
npm	restore-cursor	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	rfdc	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-command	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-regex	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	signal-exit	`3.0.7`	indirect
npm	signal-exit	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	slice-ansi	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	slice-ansi	`7.1.0`	indirect
npm	string-argv	`0.3.2`	indirect
npm	string-width	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	strip-ansi	`7.1.0`	indirect
npm	strip-final-newline	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	to-regex-range	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	type-fest	`3.13.1`	indirect
npm	which	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	wrap-ansi	`9.0.0`	indirect
npm	yaml	`2.3.4`	indirect
NuGet	coverlet.collector	`10.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Jil	`2.17.0`	indirect
NuGet	K4os.Compression.LZ4	`—`	indirect
NuGet	MemoryPack	`—`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`16.4.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.7.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub	`10.0.300`	indirect
NuGet	MsgPack.Cli	`—`	indirect
NuGet	MsgPack.Cli	`1.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Neovolve.Logging.Xunit	`6.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`—`	indirect
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`12.0.3`	indirect
NuGet	NSubstitute	`5.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	protobuf-net	`—`	indirect
NuGet	protobuf-net	`2.4.4`	indirect
NuGet	ServiceStack.Text	`—`	indirect
NuGet	Snappier	`—`	indirect
NuGet	StackExchange.Redis	`—`	indirect
NuGet	StackExchange.Redis	`2.0.601`	indirect
NuGet	System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe	`6.1.2`	indirect
NuGet	System.Text.Json	`9.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Utf8Json	`—`	indirect
NuGet	Utf8Json	`1.3.7`	indirect
NuGet	xunit	`2.4.1`	indirect
NuGet	xunit	`2.9.3`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.abstractions	`2.0.3`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.analyzers	`0.10.0`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.assert	`2.4.1`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.categories	`3.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.core	`2.4.1`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.extensibility.core	`2.4.1`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.extensibility.execution	`2.4.1`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.runner.visualstudio	`2.4.1`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.runner.visualstudio	`3.1.5`	indirect
NuGet	ZstdSharp.Port	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 82 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
cross-spawn	`7.0.3`	indirect	high	1	`7.0.5`
Newtonsoft.Json	`12.0.3`	indirect	high	1	`13.0.1`
micromatch	`4.0.5`	indirect	moderate	1	`4.0.8`
yaml	`2.3.4`	indirect	moderate	1	`2.8.3`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records