Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 11:33 UTC

masesgroup / KNet

.NET Suite for Apache Kafka™: full Apache Kafka™ API access from .NET — Producer, Consumer, Admin, Streams, Connect, KRaft. Compatible with any Kafka™ wire-protocol broker (Redpanda, MSK, Confluent, and others).

C#Apache-2.0★ 52 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Oct 2021View on GitHub ↗

masesgroup/KNet holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MASES GroupOrganization
10 followers30 public repossince Mar 2019

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?

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
25.6/36Commit cadence37/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume360 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_year360
human_commit_share0.26
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year37
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~10 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagV3.3.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases10

Community & Adoption

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

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
27.7/60Stars52 stars
5/25Forks5 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars52
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges25
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 97% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.969
How it's scored
40.3/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
22.5/30PR acceptance1,279/1,707 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1,279
open_issues8
closed_issues193
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d7
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio0.96
closed_unmerged_prs428
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 domain
7.5/25Owner reach10 followers of masesgroup
22.9/25Track record30 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers10
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginmasesgroup
public_repos30
account_age_days2,726

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows14 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://knet.masesgroup.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics14 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicskafka, java, kafka-connect, kafka-streams, kafka-producer, kafka-consumer, dotnet, apache-kafka, scala, kafka-client, kafka-connector, kafka-manager, kafka-cluster, kraft
has_wikino
homepagehttps://knet.masesgroup.com/
docs_sitehttps://knet.masesgroup.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
4/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities17 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.8
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 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_packages33
unassessed_packages0
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 33 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history25 of 26 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.962
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapsrc/jvm/knet/pom.xml, src/net/KNet.Serialization.Avro/KNet.Serialization.Avro.csproj, src/net/KNet.Serialization.Json/KNet.Serialization.Json.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance52 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_share0.01
toolchain_manifestssrc/jvm/knet/pom.xml, src/net/KNet.Serialization.Avro/KNet.Serialization.Avro.csproj, src/net/KNet.Serialization.Json/KNet.Serialization.Json.csproj, src/net/KNet.Serialization.MessagePack/KNet.Serialization.MessagePack.csproj, src/net/KNet.Serialization.Protobuf/KNet.Serialization.Protobuf.csproj, src/net/KNet/KNet.csproj, src/net/KNetCLI/KNetCLI.csproj, src/net/KNetConnect/KNetConnect.csproj, src/net/KNetPS/KNetPS.csproj, src/net/templates/templatepack.csproj, src/net/templates/templates/knetConnectSink/knetConnectSink.csproj, src/net/templates/templates/knetConnectSource/knetConnectSource.csproj, src/net/templates/templates/knetConsumerApp/knetConsumerApp.csproj, src/net/templates/templates/knetPipeStreamApp/knetPipeStreamApp.csproj, src/net/templates/templates/knetProducerApp/knetProducerApp.csproj, tests/jvm/testclass/pom.xml, tests/jvm/testclass/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml, tests/net/Benchmarks/KNetBenchmark/KNetBenchmark.csproj, tests/net/Benchmarks/KNetRoundTripBenchmark/KNetRoundTripBenchmark.csproj, tests/net/Benchmarks/KNetTopicCopyBenchmark/KNetTopicCopyBenchmark.csproj, tests/net/Connect/KNetConnectTest/KNetConnectTest.csproj, tests/net/General/KNetClassicTest/KNetClassicTest.csproj, tests/net/General/KNetCompactedReplicatorTest/KNetCompactedReplicatorTest.csproj, tests/net/General/KNetTest/KNetTest.csproj, tests/net/General/KNetTestAdmin/KNetTestAdmin.csproj, tests/net/General/KNetTestSerDes/KNetTestSerDes.csproj, tests/net/Streams/KNetStreamsTest/KNetStreamsTest.csproj, tests/net/Streams/KNetTestKNetStreams/KNetTestKNetStreams.csproj, tests/net/Streams/KNetTestStreams/KNetTestStreams.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.52
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
53.4/55Manageable file sizes51/1,795 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes2,269,792
source_files_sampled1,795
oversized_source_files51

Key facts

52GitHub stars
2contributors
360commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
8open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 5 ⇿
0Stars
5Forks
15Releases

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.

12345512021-112022-082023-06
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 11:32 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
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
8SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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
0Vulnerabilities17 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 33 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavencom.google.protobuf:protobuf-java3.25.5indirect
Mavencommons-beanutils:commons-beanutils1.11.0indirect
Mavenio.opentelemetry.proto:opentelemetry-proto1.3.2-alphaindirect
Mavenjunit:junit3.8.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.groovy:groovy5.1.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.ivy:ivy2.6.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.kafka:connect-basic-auth-extension4.3.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.kafka:connect-file4.3.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.kafka:connect-mirror4.3.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka-shell4.3.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka-streams-scala_2.134.3.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka-tools4.3.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.kafka:trogdor4.3.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-1.2-api2.25.4indirect
Mavenorg.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-slf4j-impl2.25.4indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin3.15.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-dependency-plugin3.11.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-gpg-plugin3.2.8indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin3.4.0indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.gmavenplus:gmavenplus-plugin5.1.0indirect
Mavenorg.sonatype.plugins:nexus-staging-maven-plugin1.7.0indirect
NuGetApache.Avro1.12.2indirect
NuGetConfluent.Kafka2.14.0indirect
NuGetGoogle.Protobuf3.36.0indirect
NuGetMASES.JNet2.6.9indirect
NuGetMASES.JNetCLICore2.6.9indirect
NuGetMASES.JNetPSCore2.6.9indirect
NuGetMASES.KNet3.3.0indirect
NuGetMessagePack3.1.8indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub10.0.400indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4indirect
NuGetPowerShellStandard.Library5.1.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory4.6.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 33 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.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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