Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 22:29 UTC

jasonbock / rocks

A mocking library based on the Compiler APIs (Roslyn + Mocks)

C#MIT★ 383 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Feb 2015View on GitHub ↗
#csharp-sourcegenerator#csharp#mock#mocking#testing#mocking-library

jasonbock/rocks holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (25/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jason BockPersonal account
293 followers105 public repossince Jul 2011

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?

90Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

88Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 181 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year181
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year35

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 32 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 44 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~49.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tagRocks.10.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release44
mean_days_between_releases49.2
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?

74Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

59Moderate
How it's scored
41.9/60Stars — 383 stars
11.5/25Forks — 25 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks25
stars383
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

50Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

16Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.993

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good
How it's scored
39.1/42Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance — 22/25 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs22
open_issues27
closed_issues367
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.931
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

66Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.7/25Owner reach — 293 followers of JasonBock
25/25Track record — 105 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers293
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginJasonBock
public_repos105
account_age_days5,488
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

39Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

8Critical
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscsharp-sourcegenerator, csharp, mock, mocking, testing, mocking-library
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

50Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

25At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

15Critical
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no 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_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

97Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
52.4/55Manageable file sizes — 21/452 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes215,454
source_files_sampled452
oversized_source_files21

Key facts

383GitHub stars
5contributors
181commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
32releases
1bus factor
27open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-18 22:29 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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 147

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 147 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAlba—indirect
NuGetAngleSharp—indirect
NuGetArch—indirect
NuGetArdalis.GuardClauses—indirect
NuGetAsmResolver—indirect
NuGetAspire.Hosting—indirect
NuGetAspose.Email—indirect
NuGetAutofac—indirect
NuGetAutoFixture—indirect
NuGetAutoMapper—indirect
NuGetAvalonia—indirect
NuGetAWSSDK.Core—indirect
NuGetAzure.Core—indirect
NuGetAzure.Core.Amqp—indirect
NuGetAzure.Messaging.ServiceBus—indirect
NuGetAzure.Storage.Blobs—indirect
NuGetAzure.Storage.Queues—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.12.1indirect
NuGetBlazored.LocalStorage—indirect
NuGetBlazored.Video—indirect
NuGetBogus—indirect
NuGetCastle.Core—indirect
NuGetClangSharp—indirect
NuGetConfluent.Kafka—indirect
NuGetCoravel—indirect
NuGetCoreWCF.Primitives—indirect
NuGetCsla—indirect
NuGetCsvHelper—indirect
NuGetCursively—indirect
NuGetDapper—indirect
NuGetDiffEngine—indirect
NuGetDnsClient—indirect
NuGetDotNext—indirect
NuGetDotNext.IO—indirect
NuGetDotNext.Metaprogramming—indirect
NuGetDotNext.Threading—indirect
NuGetDSharpPlus—indirect
NuGetDuende.IdentityModel—indirect
NuGetDynamicData—indirect
NuGetEfficientDynamoDb—indirect
NuGetElastic.Clients.Elasticsearch—indirect
NuGetEntityFrameworkCore.Exceptions.Common—indirect
NuGetFluentValidation—indirect
NuGetFlurl—indirect
NuGetGoogle.Apis—indirect
NuGetGraphQL—indirect
NuGetGrpc.Core.Api—indirect
NuGetHandlebars.Net—indirect
NuGetHtmlSanitizer—indirect
NuGetHumanizer—indirect
NuGetLanguageExt.Core—indirect
NuGetLib.Harmony—indirect
NuGetLifti.Core—indirect
NuGetLLVMSharp—indirect
NuGetMassTransit—indirect
NuGetMathNet.Numerics—indirect
NuGetMediatR—indirect
NuGetMessagePack—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Framework16.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Core16.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Common—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp3.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Analyzer.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeRefactoring.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Scripting3.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.SourceGenerators.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.NetAnalyzers—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Scripting3.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Workspaces.Common—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.ServiceDiscovery—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.FluentUI.AspNetCore.Components—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Garnet—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Identity.Client—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Kiota.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk16.6.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.OpenApi—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Orleans.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Quantum.Standard—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub1.0.0indirect
NuGetMono.Cecil—indirect
NuGetMoq—indirect
NuGetMscc.GenerativeAI—indirect
NuGetncalc—indirect
NuGetNetFabric.Hyperlinq.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetNetFabric.Numerics.Tensors—indirect
NuGetNinject—indirect
NuGetNodaTime—indirect
NuGetNSubstitute—indirect
NuGetNuGet.Common—indirect
NuGetNuGet.Frameworks—indirect
NuGetNUnit—indirect
NuGetNUnit3.12.0indirect
NuGetNUnit.Analyzers—indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter3.17.0indirect
NuGetOctokit—indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry—indirect
NuGetOqtane.Shared—indirect
NuGetParamore.Brighter—indirect
NuGetPidgin—indirect
NuGetPolars.NET—indirect
NuGetPragmastat—indirect
NuGetprometheus-net—indirect
NuGetProto.Actor—indirect
NuGetPulumi—indirect
NuGetQuartz—indirect
NuGetR3—indirect
NuGetRabbitMQ.Client—indirect
NuGetRecordParser—indirect
NuGetRefit—indirect
NuGetRestSharp—indirect
NuGetRocks3.1.0indirect
NuGetSep—indirect
NuGetSerilog—indirect
NuGetServiceStack—indirect
NuGetSharpZipLib—indirect
NuGetSigil—indirect
NuGetSilk.NET—indirect
NuGetSimpleInjector—indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp—indirect
NuGetSSH.NET—indirect
NuGetStackExchange.Redis—indirect
NuGetstateless—indirect
NuGetStripe.net—indirect
NuGetSylvan.Data.Csv—indirect
NuGetSystem.IO.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Tensors—indirect
NuGetSystem.Reactive—indirect
NuGetTerraFX.Interop.D3D12MemoryAllocator—indirect
NuGetTerraFX.Interop.Windows—indirect
NuGetTestcontainers—indirect
NuGetTopshelf—indirect
NuGetTwilio—indirect
NuGetVerify—indirect
NuGetwasmtime—indirect
NuGetWireMock.Net—indirect
NuGetWisp—indirect
NuGetZiggyCreatures.FusionCache—indirect
NuGetZLogger—indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with jasonbock/rocks. Read them side by side →

90mswjs/mswIndustry standard API mocking for JavaScript.Excellent93mockito/mockitoMost popular Mocking framework for unit tests written in JavaExceptional92vektra/mockeryA mock code autogenerator for GoExcellent96keploy/keployOpen-source platform for creating safe, isolated production sandboxes for API, integration, and E2E testing.Exceptional94riok/mapperlyA .NET source generator for generating object mappings. No runtime reflection.Exceptional94joke2k/fakerFaker is a Python package that generates fake data for you.Exceptional

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.