Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 21:58 UTC

martinothamar / Mediator

A high performance implementation of Mediator pattern in .NET using source generators.

C#MIT★ 3,663 stars⑂ 182 forkssince Mar 2021View on GitHub ↗
#csharp#dotnet#dotnetcore#dotnet-core#source-generation#source-gen#sourcegenerator#source-generators#dotnet-standard#csharp-sourcegenerator#mediator#mediator-pattern

martinothamar/Mediator holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (84/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated 117 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

54
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.

54
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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Martin OthamarPersonal account
278 followers77 public repossince Sep 2013@Forse

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?

50Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

34At Risk
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 117 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
14.1/18Commit volume — 36 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year36
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push117
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

74Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 10 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 117 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~166.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv3.1.0-rc.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release117
mean_days_between_releases166.8

Community & Adoption

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

79Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

86Excellent
How it's scored
57.8/60Stars — 3,663 stars
18.8/25Forks — 182 forks
9.2/15Watchers — 47 watchers
Inputs used
forks182
stars3,663
watchers47
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

29At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 85% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.848

Issue & PR responsiveness

82Excellent
How it's scored
31.2/42Issue resolution — 74% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance — 122/132 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs122
open_issues33
closed_issues96
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.744
closed_unmerged_prs10
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

66Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.6/25Owner reach — 278 followers of martinothamar
25/25Track record — 77 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers278
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmartinothamar
public_repos77
account_age_days4,694
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 12 workflow(s)
24/24Tests 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_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
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 — 12 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscsharp, dotnet, dotnetcore, dotnet-core, source-generation, source-gen, sourcegenerator, source-generators, dotnet-standard, csharp-sourcegenerator, mediator, mediator-pattern
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

1Critical
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — no dependency manifests — not applicable
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifests—
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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.

84Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.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_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,454
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

85Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Justfile, benchmarks/Justfile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesJustfile, benchmarks/Justfile
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

83Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
37.7/55Manageable file sizes — 134/426 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes384,884
source_files_sampled426
oversized_source_files134

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
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

3,663GitHub stars
17contributors
36commits, last 12 months
117days since last push
10releases
1bus factor
33open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (Skipping github.com/martinothamar/Mediator: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: stream error: stream ID 3; CANCEL; received from peer); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

All dependencies 59

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 59 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAutofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection10.0.0indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet.Diagnostics.dotTrace—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet.Diagnostics.Windows—indirect
NuGetBuildalyzer.Workspaces—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector—indirect
NuGetFluentAssertions—indirect
NuGetFluentValidation12.1.0indirect
NuGetFluentValidation.AspNetCore11.3.1indirect
NuGetJetBrains.DotMemoryUnit—indirect
NuGetMassTransit8.5.5indirect
NuGetMediator.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMediator.SourceGenerator—indirect
NuGetMediatR—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly.Server10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Locator—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Tasks.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Common—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.Workspaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Workspaces.Common—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Workspaces.MSBuild—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions10.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetNuGet.ProjectModel—indirect
NuGetOneOf3.0.271indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol1.15.0indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting1.15.0indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore1.15.0indirect
NuGetPolySharp—indirect
NuGetRiok.Mapperly4.3.0indirect
NuGetScriban—indirect
NuGetSwashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerUI10.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Immutable—indirect
NuGetSystem.Configuration.ConfigurationManager—indirect
NuGetSystem.Linq.Async—indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe—indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions—indirect
NuGetVerify.DiffPlex—indirect
NuGetVerify.SourceGenerators—indirect
NuGetVerify.XunitV3—indirect
NuGetXunit.Combinatorial—indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—indirect
NuGetxunit.v3—indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.assert—indirect
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 martinothamar/Mediator. Read them side by side →

94riok/mapperlyA .NET source generator for generating object mappings. No runtime reflection.Exceptional91ElectronNET/Electron.NET:electron: Build cross platform desktop apps with ASP.NET Core (Razor Pages, MVC, Blazor).Excellent89guibranco/CrispyWaffle🧰 🛠️ Crispy Waffle project - toolkit for .NET projectsExcellent95bitwarden/serverBitwarden infrastructure/backend (API, database, Docker, etc).Exceptional90Ivy-Interactive/Ivy-FrameworkThe ultimate framework for building internal tools with LLM code generation by unifying front-end and back-end into a single C# codebase. Excellent90DSharpPlus/DSharpPlusA .NET library for making bots using the Discord API.Excellent

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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