Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-01 22:27 UTC

manuelbl / SwissQRBill.NET

.NET library for Swiss QR bill payment slips (aka QR-Rechnung)

C#MIT★ 117 stars⑂ 34 forkssince Dec 2018View on GitHub ↗

manuelbl/SwissQRBill.NET holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (65/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (32/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
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.

50
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Manuel Bl.Personal account
108 followers22 public repossince Feb 2015

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?

65Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume — 12 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 36 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~168 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv3.5.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases168

Community & Adoption

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

51Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
33.5/60Stars — 117 stars
12.7/25Forks — 34 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks34
stars117
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges
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?

48Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.876
How it's scored
38.1/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
18.8/30PR acceptance — 15/24 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs15
open_issues4
closed_issues39
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.907
closed_unmerged_prs9
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.6/25Owner reach — 108 followers of manuelbl
21.9/25Track record — 22 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers108
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmanuelbl
public_repos22
account_age_days4,189
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotnet, csharp, pdf, svg
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
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 — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/30 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
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 — 12 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): branch_protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages26
unassessed_packages4
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 26 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 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.

32At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
3.2/40Legible commit history — 6 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.06
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Core/Core.csproj, CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj, Examples/Basic/Basic.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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_share0
toolchain_manifestsCore/Core.csproj, CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj, Examples/Basic/Basic.csproj, Examples/MicrosoftWordAddIn/MicrosoftWordAddIn.csproj, Examples/PDFsharp/PDFsharp.csproj, Examples/WinUI/WinUI/WinUI.csproj, Examples/WindowsForms/WindowsForms.csproj, Examples/WindowsPresentationFoundation/WindowsPresentationFoundation.csproj, Examples/iText/iText/iText.csproj, PDFFonts/pom.xml, PixelCanvas/PixelCanvas.csproj, PixelCanvasTest/PixelCanvasTest.csproj, Windows/Windows.csproj, WindowsTest/WindowsTest.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 1/159 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes84,022
source_files_sampled159
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files

Key facts

117GitHub stars
6contributors
12commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
4open issues
Maven, NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch maven package 'net.codecrete.qrbill:pdffonts' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 34 ⇿
0Stars
34Forks
33Releases

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.

01325383422019-092022-112026-01
Major 1Minor 7Patch 24

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-01 22:27 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 2 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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 23
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetNet.Codecrete.QrCodeGenerator3.*Core/Core.csproj
NuGetDocnet.Core2.6.0CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj
NuGetMagick.NET-Q16-AnyCPU14.16.0CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.8.1CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj
NuGetSkiaSharp3.119.0CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj
NuGetSkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux3.119.0CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj
NuGetVerify.XunitV331.28.0CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj
NuGetxunit.v33.2.2CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5CoreTest/CoreTest.csproj
Mavenorg.apache.pdfbox:pdfbox3.0.6PDFFonts/pom.xml
NuGetSkiaSharp3.*PixelCanvas/PixelCanvas.csproj
NuGetMagick.NET-Q16-AnyCPU14.16.0PixelCanvasTest/PixelCanvasTest.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.8.1PixelCanvasTest/PixelCanvasTest.csproj
NuGetSkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux3.119.0PixelCanvasTest/PixelCanvasTest.csproj
NuGetVerify.XunitV331.28.0PixelCanvasTest/PixelCanvasTest.csproj
NuGetxunit.v33.2.2PixelCanvasTest/PixelCanvasTest.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5PixelCanvasTest/PixelCanvasTest.csproj
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common4.*Windows/Windows.csproj
NuGetMagick.NET-Q16-AnyCPU14.16.0WindowsTest/WindowsTest.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.8.1WindowsTest/WindowsTest.csproj
NuGetVerify.XunitV331.28.0WindowsTest/WindowsTest.csproj
NuGetxunit.v33.2.2WindowsTest/WindowsTest.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5WindowsTest/WindowsTest.csproj
All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenorg.apache.pdfbox:pdfbox3.0.6direct
NuGetDocnet.Core2.6.0direct
NuGetMagick.NET-Q16-AnyCPU14.16.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.8.1direct
NuGetNet.Codecrete.QrCodeGeneratordirect
NuGetNet.Codecrete.QrCodeGenerator2.1.0direct
NuGetSkiaSharpdirect
NuGetSkiaSharp3.119.0direct
NuGetSkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux3.119.0direct
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Commondirect
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common4.7.3direct
NuGetVerify.XunitV331.28.0direct
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5direct
NuGetxunit.v33.2.2direct
NuGetCodecrete.SwissQRBill.Core3.5.0indirect
NuGetCodecrete.SwissQRBill.Generator3.5.0indirect
NuGetCodecrete.SwissQRBill.Windows3.5.0indirect
NuGetitext7indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces8.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions8.0.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions8.0.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Graphics.Win2D1.3.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WindowsAppSDK1.8.251106002indirect
NuGetPDFsharp6.2.4indirect
NuGetSystem.Buffers4.5.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory4.5.5indirect
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Vectors4.5.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe4.5.3indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Cryptography.Pkcs8.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions4.5.4indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 26 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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