Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 14:26 UTC

ktsu-dev / ThemeProvider

A semantic color theming library for .NET applications that provides 44+ beautiful themes with intelligent color mapping, framework integration, and accessibility-first design.

C#MIT★ 1 star⑂ 1 forksince Jul 2025View on GitHub ↗
#accessibility#color#color-palette#color-science#color-space#colors#contrast-ratio#dark-theme#dear-imgui#imgui#light-theme#oklab#perceptual-color#semantic-colors#theme#theming#ui-framework#wcag#csharp#dotnet

ktsu-dev/ThemeProvider holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ktsu.devOrganization
11 followers75 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?

86Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

83Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 429 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year429
human_commit_share0.5
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 98 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count98
latest_release_tagv3.0.23
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.3

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars1
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges7
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

34At Risk · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

18Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.985

Issue & PR responsiveness

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance — 93/97 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs93
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs4
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.

Ownership & stewardship

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
7.8/25Owner reach — 11 followers of ktsu-dev
17.4/25Track record — 75 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers11
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginktsu-dev
public_repos75
account_age_days812

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

38Weak
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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://ktsu.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaccessibility, color, color-palette, color-science, color-space, colors, contrast-ratio, dark-theme, dear-imgui, imgui, light-theme, oklab, perceptual-color, semantic-colors, theme, theming, ui-framework, wcag, csharp, dotnet
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?

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SAST — no data
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, SAST. 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

61Moderate
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16/40Legible commit history — 15 of 50 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.3
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,326

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

37Weak
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — ThemeProvider.Analysis/ThemeProvider.Analysis.csproj, ThemeProvider.ImGui/ThemeProvider.ImGui.csproj, ThemeProvider.Test/ThemeProvider.Test.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 25 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsThemeProvider.Analysis/ThemeProvider.Analysis.csproj, ThemeProvider.ImGui/ThemeProvider.ImGui.csproj, ThemeProvider.Test/ThemeProvider.Test.csproj, ThemeProvider/ThemeProvider.csproj, ThemeProviderDemo/ThemeProviderDemo.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.25

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/68 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes25,560
source_files_sampled68
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
2contributors
429commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
98releases
1bus factor
1open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 14:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsinternal error: internal error: Client.Repositories.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-15T14:26:26Z. Please include `ECD4:2A19A:43AB6:4234F:6AA95590` when reporting this issue.
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
n/aSASTinternal error: internal error: Client.Checks.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-15T14:26:26Z. Please include `ECD4:2A19A:43AB6:4234F:6AA95590` when reporting this issue.
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 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetHexa.NET.ImGui—ThemeProvider.Analysis/ThemeProvider.Analysis.csproj
NuGetktsu.Semantics.Color—ThemeProvider.Analysis/ThemeProvider.Analysis.csproj
NuGetPolyfill—ThemeProvider.Analysis/ThemeProvider.Analysis.csproj
NuGetHexa.NET.ImGui—ThemeProvider.ImGui/ThemeProvider.ImGui.csproj
NuGetktsu.Semantics.Color—ThemeProvider.ImGui/ThemeProvider.ImGui.csproj
NuGetPolyfill—ThemeProvider.ImGui/ThemeProvider.ImGui.csproj
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Vectors—ThemeProvider.ImGui/ThemeProvider.ImGui.csproj
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions—ThemeProvider.ImGui/ThemeProvider.ImGui.csproj
NuGetSystem.Memory—ThemeProvider.ImGui/ThemeProvider.ImGui.csproj
NuGetktsu.Semantics.Color—ThemeProvider/ThemeProvider.csproj
NuGetPolyfill—ThemeProvider/ThemeProvider.csproj
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Vectors—ThemeProvider/ThemeProvider.csproj
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions—ThemeProvider/ThemeProvider.csproj
NuGetSystem.Memory—ThemeProvider/ThemeProvider.csproj
NuGetHexa.NET.ImGui—ThemeProviderDemo/ThemeProviderDemo.csproj
NuGetktsu.ImGui.App—ThemeProviderDemo/ThemeProviderDemo.csproj
NuGetktsu.Semantics.Color—ThemeProviderDemo/ThemeProviderDemo.csproj
NuGetPolyfill—ThemeProviderDemo/ThemeProviderDemo.csproj
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetHexa.NET.ImGui—direct
NuGetktsu.ImGui.App—direct
NuGetktsu.Semantics.Color—direct
NuGetPolyfill—direct
NuGetSystem.Memory—direct
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Vectors—direct
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions—direct
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 ktsu-dev/ThemeProvider. Read them side by side →

94public-ui/kolibriThe accessible HTML-StandardExceptional92sanity-io/uiThe Sanity UI design system.Excellent91color-js/color.jsColor conversion & manipulation library by the editors of the CSS Color specificationsExcellent100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional98modelcontextprotocol/csharp-sdkThe official C# SDK for Model Context Protocol servers and clients. Maintained in collaboration with Microsoft.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.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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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