Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 16:22 UTC

kontent-ai / management-sdk-net

Kontent.ai Management .NET SDK

C#MIT★ 8 stars⑂ 30 forkssince Nov 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#sdk#nuget#dotnet#dotnet-standard#dotnet-core#headless-cms#content-management#import#export#hacktoberfest#kontent-ai#kontent-ai-tool

kontent-ai/management-sdk-net holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (50/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

78
overall / 100
Good

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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Kontent.aiOrganization
78 followers64 public repossince Apr 2022

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

59Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
11.7/18Commit volume — 19 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year19
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 69 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~27.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count69
latest_release_tag8.3.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases27.2

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

61Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

33At Risk
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars — 8 stars
12.2/25Forks — 30 forks
7/15Watchers — 19 watchers
Inputs used
forks30
stars8
watchers19
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?

82Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

76Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 27% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 36 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled36
top_contributor_share0.267

Issue & PR responsiveness

91Excellent
How it's scored
39/42Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance — 184/195 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs184
open_issues7
closed_issues92
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.929
closed_unmerged_prs11
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

81Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
13.6/25Owner reach — 78 followers of kontent-ai
21.4/25Track record — 64 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers78
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginkontent-ai
public_repos64
account_age_days1,541
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.nuget.org/packages/Kontent.Ai.Management
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 12 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssdk, nuget, dotnet, dotnet-standard, dotnet-core, headless-cms, content-management, import, export, hacktoberfest, kontent-ai, kontent-ai-tool
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.nuget.org/packages/Kontent.Ai.Management
docs_sitehttps://www.nuget.org/packages/Kontent.Ai.Management
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

65Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 13/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
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_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,987
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

13Critical
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes — 1/428 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes84,250
source_files_sampled428
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

8GitHub stars
36contributors
19commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
69releases
3bus factor
7open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 16:22 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
9CI-Tests13 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 13/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained2 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
8SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 22
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.2.0Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit2.4.1Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.4.5Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector3.1.2Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild3.1.2Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Options6.0.0Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers/Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Sourcelink.Github1.1.1Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers/Kontent.Ai.Management.Helpers.csproj
NuGetFluentAssertions6.7.0Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration6.0.1Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder6.0.0Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.UserSecrets6.0.1Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetNSubstitute4.4.0Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.2.0Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit2.4.1Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.4.5Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector3.1.2Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild3.1.2Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests/Kontent.Ai.Management.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0Kontent.Ai.Management/Kontent.Ai.Management.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.1Kontent.Ai.Management/Kontent.Ai.Management.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Sourcelink.Github1.1.1Kontent.Ai.Management/Kontent.Ai.Management.csproj
NuGetPolly7.2.3Kontent.Ai.Management/Kontent.Ai.Management.csproj
NuGetPolly.Extensions.Http3.0.0Kontent.Ai.Management/Kontent.Ai.Management.csproj
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetcoverlet.collector3.1.2direct
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild3.1.2direct
NuGetFluentAssertions6.7.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration6.0.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder6.0.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.UserSecrets6.0.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Options6.0.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.2.0direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.1direct
NuGetNSubstitute4.4.0direct
NuGetPolly7.2.3direct
NuGetPolly.Extensions.Http3.0.0direct
NuGetxunit2.4.1direct
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.4.5direct
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 kontent-ai/management-sdk-net. Read them side by side →

98strapi/strapi🚀 Strapi is the leading open-source headless CMS. It’s 100% JavaScript/TypeScript, fully customizable, and developer-first.Exceptional100dotnet/aspnetcoreASP.NET Core is a cross-platform .NET framework for building modern cloud-based web applications on Windows, Mac, or Linux.Exceptional98unoplatform/unoOpen-source platform for building cross-platform native Mobile, Web, Desktop, and Embedded apps from a single C#/XAML codebase. Work from any IDE/CLI with Hot Reload, Visual Designer, MCPs, and Skills built for modern .NET workflows. 200M+ NuGet downloads.Exceptional98open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contribThis repository contains set of components extending functionality of the OpenTelemetry .NET SDK. Instrumentation libraries, exporters, and other components can find their home here.Exceptional98umbraco/Umbraco-CMSUmbraco is a free and open source .NET content management system helping you deliver delightful digital experiences.Exceptional97jellyfin/jellyfinThe Free Software Media System - Server Backend & APIExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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