Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 21:43 UTC

msgpack / msgpack-cli

MessagePack implementation for Common Language Infrastructure / msgpack.org[C#]

C#Apache-2.0★ 858 stars⑂ 176 forkssince May 2012View on GitHub ↗
#c-sharp#messagepack#msgpack#serialization

msgpack/msgpack-cli holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (64/100) and lowest on Vitality (19/100). It was last updated 736 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

42
overall / 100
Weak

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.

42
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MessagePackOrganization
274 followers22 public repossince Feb 2010

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?

19Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 736 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push736
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

47Weak
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 41 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,722 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~95.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count41
latest_release_tag1.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,722
mean_days_between_releases95.8

Community & Adoption

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

64Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

76Good
How it's scored
47.6/60Stars — 858 stars
18.7/25Forks — 176 forks
9.8/15Watchers — 59 watchers
Inputs used
forks176
stars858
watchers59
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 71% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 44 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 38 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled44
top_contributor_share0.712

Issue & PR responsiveness

71Good
How it's scored
30.4/42Issue resolution — 72% of issues closed
22.5/30PR acceptance — 54/72 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs54
open_issues79
closed_issues206
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.723
closed_unmerged_prs18
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

87Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
17.5/25Owner reach — 274 followers of msgpack
21.9/25Track record — 22 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers274
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginmsgpack
public_repos22
account_age_days6,006
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://msgpack.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsc-sharp, messagepack, msgpack, serialization
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://msgpack.org
docs_sitehttp://msgpack.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

30At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk
How it's scored
6/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 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
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 38 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

46Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
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_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
53.6/55Manageable file sizes — 48/1,892 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes902,464
source_files_sampled1,892
oversized_source_files48

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

858GitHub stars
44contributors
0commits, last 12 months
736days since last push
41releases
1bus factor
79open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 21:43 UTC

8Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 6/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 38 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
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.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 57

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetFSharp.Core4.2.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.Immutable1.0.30indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build15.3.409indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Core15.3.409indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp2.4.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk15.3.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NETCore.App2.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NETCore.UniversalWindowsPlatform5.2.2indirect
NuGetMono.Cecil0.10.0-beta6indirect
NuGetMono.Options5.3.0.1indirect
NuGetNETStandard.Library2.0.0indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json10.0.3indirect
NuGetNUnit2.6.0.12054indirect
NuGetNUnit2.6.2indirect
NuGetNUnit3.8.1indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter3.8.0indirect
NuGetSystem.CodeDom4.4.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections4.0.11indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Concurrent4.0.12indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Immutable1.4.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.NonGeneric4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.NonGeneric4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Specialized4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Specialized4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Data.Common4.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.Contracts4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.Debug4.0.11indirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.Tools4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Globalization4.0.11indirect
NuGetSystem.IO4.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Linq4.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Linq.Expressions4.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Vectors4.1.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Vectors4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Vectors4.4.0indirect
NuGetSystem.ObjectModel4.0.12indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection4.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Emit4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Emit4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Emit.Lightweight4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Emit.Lightweight4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Extensions4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Primitives4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Resources.ResourceManager4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime4.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Extensions4.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.InteropServices4.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Numerics4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Numerics4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Serialization.Primitives4.1.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Serialization.Primitives4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Encoding4.0.11indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Encoding.Extensions4.0.11indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.RegularExpressions4.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading4.0.11indirect
NuGetSystem.ValueTuple4.4.0indirect
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 msgpack/msgpack-cli. Read them side by side →

84MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharpExtremely Fast MessagePack Serializer for C#(.NET, .NET Core, Unity, Xamarin). / msgpack.org[C#]Excellent88msgspec/msgspecA fast serialization and validation library, with builtin support for JSON, MessagePack, YAML, and TOMLExcellent87AArnott/Nerdbank.MessagePackA feature-packed .NET MessagePack serialization library with great performance and simplicity. msgpack.io[C#]Excellent86msgpack/msgpack-pythonMessagePack serializer implementation for Python msgpack.org[Python]Excellent69msgpack/msgpack-javascript@msgpack/msgpack - MessagePack for JavaScript / msgpack.org[ECMA-262/JavaScript/TypeScript]Good94nlohmann/jsonJSON for Modern C++Exceptional

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.