Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 19:10 UTC

ktsu-dev / Sdk

A comprehensive, robust MSBuild-based SDK for .NET projects (.NET 5.0+, .NET Standard 2.0/2.1) with optimizations for .NET 10.0.

C# · PowerShellMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗

ktsu-dev/Sdk holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

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

Ownership

ktsu.devOrganization
7 followers72 public repossince Jun 2024

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?

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence16/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume248 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year248
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~0.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.27.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.3

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 95% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.953
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance23/23 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs23
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d7
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
6.5/25Owner reach7 followers of ktsu-dev
17.3/25Track record72 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers7
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginktsu-dev
public_repos72
account_age_days779
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://ktsu.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbuild-automation, code-quality, cross-platform, documentation, dotnet-sdk, github-workflow, metadata, msbuild, net5, net6, net7, net8, net9, netstandard, nuget, package, project-structure, sdk, msbuildsdk, namespace-generation
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://ktsu.dev
docs_sitehttps://ktsu.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.3

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_packages11
unassessed_packages6
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 11 resolved dependencies against OSV. 6 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.

70Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.8/40Legible commit history30 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.333
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes26,841
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapSdk.Analyzers/Sdk.Analyzers.csproj, Sdk.Android/Sdk.Android.csproj, Sdk.App/Sdk.App.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsSdk.Analyzers/Sdk.Analyzers.csproj, Sdk.Android/Sdk.Android.csproj, Sdk.App/Sdk.App.csproj, Sdk.ConsoleApp/Sdk.ConsoleApp.csproj, Sdk.Linux/Sdk.Linux.csproj, Sdk.Tasks/Sdk.Tasks.csproj, Sdk.Tool/Sdk.Tool.csproj, Sdk.Windows/Sdk.Windows.csproj, Sdk.iOS/Sdk.iOS.csproj, Sdk.macOS/Sdk.macOS.csproj, Sdk/Sdk.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0001-MissingStandardPackages-WithPolyfill/MissingSystemMemory/MissingSystemMemory.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0001-MissingStandardPackages/MissingStandardPackages/MissingStandardPackages.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0002-MissingInternalsVisibleTo/Service.Test/Service.Test.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0002-MissingInternalsVisibleTo/Service/Service.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0003-PreferEnsureNotNull/PreferEnsureNotNull/PreferEnsureNotNull.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0004-ManualNullCheck/ManualNullCheck/ManualNullCheck.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0005-OrphanedPackageVersion-Allowlisted/Allowlisted/Allowlisted.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0005-OrphanedPackageVersion-CrossProject/Consumer/Consumer.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0005-OrphanedPackageVersion-CrossProject/Producer/Producer.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0005-OrphanedPackageVersion/OrphanedPackageVersion/OrphanedPackageVersion.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0006-TransitivePackageUsedDirectly/TransitivePackageUsedDirectly/TransitivePackageUsedDirectly.csproj, examples/analyzers/KTSU0007-NonPrivatePolyfill/NonPrivatePolyfill/NonPrivatePolyfill.csproj, examples/demos/Android/Demo.Android/Demo.Android.csproj, examples/demos/App/App/App.csproj, examples/demos/ConsoleApp/ConsoleApp/ConsoleApp.csproj, examples/demos/Library/Library/Library.csproj, examples/demos/Linux/Linux/Linux.csproj, examples/demos/Test/Calculator.Test/Calculator.Test.csproj, examples/demos/Test/Calculator/Calculator.csproj, examples/demos/Tool/Demo.Tool/Demo.Tool.csproj, examples/demos/Windows/Demo.Windows/Demo.Windows.csproj, examples/demos/iOS/Demo.iOS/Demo.iOS.csproj, examples/demos/macOS/Demo.macOS/Demo.macOS.csproj, test/Sdk.Examples.Tests/Sdk.Examples.Tests.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/53 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes10,724
source_files_sampled53
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesdemos, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsdemos, examples
has_mcp_signalno
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

0GitHub stars
2contributors
248commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 19:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not 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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp5.6.0Sdk.Analyzers/Sdk.Analyzers.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces5.6.0Sdk.Analyzers/Sdk.Analyzers.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers5.6.0Sdk.Analyzers/Sdk.Analyzers.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Core17.3.2Sdk.Tasks/Sdk.Tasks.csproj
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 13 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Core17.3.2direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers5.6.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp5.6.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces5.6.0direct
NuGetktsu.Sdk1.8.1-pre.4indirect
NuGetktsu.Sdk.App1.8.1-pre.4indirect
NuGetktsu.Sdk.Lib1.8.1-pre.4indirect
NuGetktsu.Sdk.Test1.8.1-pre.4indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Loggingindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdkindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.11.1indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapterindirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter3.6.4indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFrameworkindirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework3.6.4indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Jsonindirect
NuGetPolyfillindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 11 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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