Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 09:48 UTC

manuc66 / JsonSubTypes

Discriminated Json Subtypes Converter implementation for .NET

C#MIT★ 434 stars⑂ 52 forkssince Jun 2017View on GitHub ↗

#json #converter #subtype #inheritance #deserializeobject #csharp #polymorphism #dotnet

manuc66/JsonSubTypes holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (76/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (49/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Emmanuel CounassePersonal account

27 followers42 public repossince Oct 2013GAMING1

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?

76Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

70Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 4 days ago
6.2/36	Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 190 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	190
human_commit_share	0.95
days_since_last_push	4
active_weeks_last_year	9

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 18 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 33 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~317.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	18
latest_release_tag	v1.0.0-rc.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	33
mean_days_between_releases	317.4

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?

66Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

60Moderate

How it's scored

42.8/60	Stars — 434 stars
14.2/25	Forks — 52 forks
3.3/15	Watchers — 5 watchers

Inputs used

forks	52
stars	434
watchers	5
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

72Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	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	6
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	codecov.io, github.com, shields.io, sonarcloud.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)

30At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	14
top_contributor_share	0.927

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good

How it's scored

41/42	Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
25.9/30	PR acceptance — 106/123 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	106
open_issues	2
closed_issues	85
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	4
prs_decided_30d	4
issue_closed_ratio	0.977
closed_unmerged_prs	17
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

55Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.4/25	Owner reach — 27 followers of manuc66
23.9/25	Track record — 42 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	27
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	manuc66
public_repos	42
account_age_days	4,700

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

52Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

36Weak

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
6/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://manuc66.github.io/JsonSubTypes/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 8 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	json, converter, subtype, inheritance, deserializeobject, csharp, polymorphism, dotnet
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://manuc66.github.io/JsonSubTypes/
docs_site	https://manuc66.github.io/JsonSubTypes/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

75Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

69Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0.8/2.5	CI-Tests — 2 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
3/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	6.9

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	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	13
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
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 13 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 89 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.937
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

37Weak

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — JsonSubTypes.Benchmarks/JsonSubTypes.Benchmarks.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35/JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Tests.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	JsonSubTypes.Benchmarks/JsonSubTypes.Benchmarks.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35/JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Tests.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generated/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generated.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Sample/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Sample.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests.Plugin/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests.Plugin.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests.Shared/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests.Shared.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests.csproj, JsonSubTypes.Text.Json/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.csproj, JsonSubTypes/JsonSubTypes.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.05

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.5/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/100 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C#
largest_source_bytes	66,074
source_files_sampled	100
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

434GitHub stars

14contributors

190commits, last 12 months

4days since last push

18releases

1bus factor

2open issues

NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 52 ⇿

0Stars

52Forks

16Releases

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 8Patch 7

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10

6.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 09:48 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
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
3	CI-Tests	2 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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	30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
5	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
6	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 28

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
NuGet	BenchmarkDotNet	`0.15.8`	JsonSubTypes.Benchmarks/JsonSubTypes.Benchmarks.csproj
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`13.0.4`	JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35/JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35.csproj
NuGet	NUnit	`3.14.0`	JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35/JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35.csproj
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`6.3.0`	JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35/JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35.csproj
NuGet	TaskParallelLibrary	`1.0.2856.0`	JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35/JsonSubTypes.Tests.Net35.csproj
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`13.0.4`	JsonSubTypes.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Tests.csproj
NuGet	NUnit	`3.14.0`	JsonSubTypes.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Tests.csproj
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`6.3.0`	JsonSubTypes.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.8.1`	JsonSubTypes.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Tests.csproj
NuGet	coverlet.collector	`10.0.1`	JsonSubTypes.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Tests.csproj
NuGet	nunit	`3.13.3`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests.csproj
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`6.3.0`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.8.1`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests.csproj
NuGet	coverlet.collector	`10.0.1`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp	`5.9.0`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Generator.Tests.csproj
NuGet	nunit	`3.13.3`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests.csproj
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`6.3.0`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.8.1`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests.csproj
NuGet	coverlet.collector	`10.0.1`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp	`5.9.0`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Aot.csproj
NuGet	nunit	`3.13.3`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests.csproj
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`6.3.0`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.8.1`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests.csproj
NuGet	coverlet.collector	`10.0.1`	JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests/JsonSubTypes.Text.Json.Tests.csproj
NuGet	Microsoft.NETFramework.ReferenceAssemblies	`1.0.3`	JsonSubTypes/JsonSubTypes.csproj
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`13.0.4`	JsonSubTypes/JsonSubTypes.csproj
NuGet	System.Net.Http	`4.3.4`	JsonSubTypes/JsonSubTypes.csproj
NuGet	System.Text.RegularExpressions	`4.3.1`	JsonSubTypes/JsonSubTypes.csproj

All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
NuGet	BenchmarkDotNet	`0.15.8`	direct
NuGet	coverlet.collector	`10.0.1`	direct
NuGet	Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp	`5.9.0`	direct
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.8.1`	direct
NuGet	Microsoft.NETFramework.ReferenceAssemblies	`1.0.3`	direct
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`13.0.3`	direct
NuGet	Newtonsoft.Json	`13.0.4`	direct
NuGet	NUnit	`3.13.3`	direct
NuGet	NUnit	`3.14.0`	direct
NuGet	NUnit3TestAdapter	`6.3.0`	direct
NuGet	System.Net.Http	`4.3.4`	direct
NuGet	System.Text.RegularExpressions	`4.3.1`	direct
NuGet	TaskParallelLibrary	`1.0.2856.0`	direct

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 13 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.

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