Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 18:08 UTC

micro-elements / MicroElements.Swashbuckle.FluentValidation

Use FluentValidation rules instead of ComponentModel attributes

C#MIT★ 400 stars⑂ 70 forkssince Mar 2018View on GitHub ↗

micro-elements/MicroElements.Swashbuckle.FluentValidation holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Security (40/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

MicroElementsOrganization

8 followers27 public repossince Dec 2017

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

76Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 7 days ago
12.5/36	Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 149 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	149
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	7
active_weeks_last_year	18

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 35 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 7 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~2.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	35
latest_release_tag	v7.2.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	7
mean_days_between_releases	2.8

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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

63Moderate

How it's scored

42.2/60	Stars — 400 stars
15.3/25	Forks — 70 forks
5.8/15	Watchers — 12 watchers

Inputs used

forks	70
stars	400
watchers	12
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

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)

33At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 65% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 23 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	23
top_contributor_share	0.654

Issue & PR responsiveness

70Good

How it's scored

33.9/42	Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
27.2/30	PR acceptance — 79/87 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	79
open_issues	28
closed_issues	116
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.806
closed_unmerged_prs	8
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

74Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
6.9/25	Owner reach — 8 followers of micro-elements
22.5/25	Track record — 27 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	8
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	micro-elements
public_repos	27
account_age_days	3,131

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

25At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	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	4.9
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	50
security_posture_after_multiplier	25
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	50

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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	27
unassessed_packages	1
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 27 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

40Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	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 data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
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

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/157 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C#
largest_source_bytes	33,439
source_files_sampled	157
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — test/schema/swagger.json
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — samples

Inputs used

example_dirs	samples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	test/schema/swagger.json
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

400GitHub stars

23contributors

149commits, last 12 months

7days since last push

35releases

1bus factor

28open issues

—package ecosystems

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 · 2026-07-20 18:08 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
NuGet	FluentAssertions	`8.2.0`	indirect
NuGet	FluentValidation	`12.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions	`12.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	JetBrains.Annotations	`2024.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	MicroElements.CodeContracts.Sources	`1.4.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.NewtonsoftJson	`9.0.5`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Testing	`10.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Testing	`9.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi	`—`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore	`9.0.5`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory	`9.0.5`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions	`9.0.5`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Options	`9.0.5`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`17.14.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.OpenApi	`1.6.25`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.OpenApi	`2.7.5`	indirect
NuGet	NJsonSchema	`11.3.2`	indirect
NuGet	NSwag.AspNetCore	`14.4.0`	indirect
NuGet	NSwag.Generation	`14.4.0`	indirect
NuGet	Swashbuckle.AspNetCore	`10.2.1`	indirect
NuGet	Swashbuckle.AspNetCore	`8.1.1`	indirect
NuGet	Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.Annotations	`10.2.1`	indirect
NuGet	Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.Annotations	`8.1.1`	indirect
NuGet	Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerGen	`10.2.1`	indirect
NuGet	Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerGen	`8.1.1`	indirect
NuGet	Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerUI	`8.1.1`	indirect
NuGet	xunit	`2.9.3`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.runner.visualstudio	`3.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 27 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 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

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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