Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 12:47 UTC

mz-automation / libiec61850

Official repository for libIEC61850, the open-source library for the IEC 61850 protocols

C · C#GPL-3.0★ 1,215 stars⑂ 608 forkssince Feb 2017View on GitHub ↗

mz-automation/libiec61850 holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (46/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MZ Automation GmbHOrganization
110 followers5 public repossince Feb 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?

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume164 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_year164
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases22 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 36 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~275.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv1.6.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release36
mean_days_between_releases275.8
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
50/60Stars1,215 stars
23.2/25Forks608 forks
11.2/15Watchers103 watchers
Inputs used
forks608
stars1,215
watchers103
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
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?

46Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 87% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth20 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled20
top_contributor_share0.87
How it's scored
24.7/42Issue resolution59% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues195
closed_issues277
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.587
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
14.7/25Owner reach110 followers of mz-automation
17.7/25Track record5 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers110
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginmz-automation
public_repos5
account_age_days3,487

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.mz-automation.de/iec-61850-protocol-library/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsiec-61850, mms, goose
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.mz-automation.de/iec-61850-protocol-library/
docs_sitehttps://www.mz-automation.de/iec-61850-protocol-library/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
4.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is 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
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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_packages5
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 5 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12.3/40Legible commit history23 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.23
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile, demos/beaglebone/Makefile, examples/Makefile, examples/goose_observer/Makefile, examples/goose_publisher/Makefile, examples/goose_subscriber/Makefile, examples/iec61850_9_2_LE_example/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example1/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example2/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example4/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example5/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_ClientGooseControl/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_ClientGooseControlAsync/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_array/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_async/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_control/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_files/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_log/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_no_thread/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_rcbAsync/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_reporting/Makefile, examples/iec61850_sv_client_example/Makefile, examples/mms_utility/Makefile, examples/server_example_61400_25/Makefile, examples/server_example_access_control/Makefile, examples/server_example_basic_io/Makefile, examples/server_example_complex_array/Makefile, examples/server_example_config_file/Makefile, examples/server_example_control/Makefile, examples/server_example_deadband/Makefile, examples/server_example_dynamic/Makefile, examples/server_example_files/Makefile, examples/server_example_goose/Makefile, examples/server_example_logging/Makefile, examples/server_example_password_auth/Makefile, examples/server_example_setting_groups/Makefile, examples/server_example_simple/Makefile, examples/server_example_substitution/Makefile, examples/server_example_threadless/Makefile, examples/server_example_write_handler/Makefile, examples/sv_publisher/Makefile, examples/sv_subscriber/Makefile, examples/tls_client_example/Makefile, examples/tls_server_example/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
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_filesMakefile, demos/beaglebone/Makefile, examples/Makefile, examples/goose_observer/Makefile, examples/goose_publisher/Makefile, examples/goose_subscriber/Makefile, examples/iec61850_9_2_LE_example/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example1/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example2/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example4/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example5/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_ClientGooseControl/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_ClientGooseControlAsync/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_array/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_async/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_control/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_files/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_log/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_no_thread/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_rcbAsync/Makefile, examples/iec61850_client_example_reporting/Makefile, examples/iec61850_sv_client_example/Makefile, examples/mms_utility/Makefile, examples/server_example_61400_25/Makefile, examples/server_example_access_control/Makefile, examples/server_example_basic_io/Makefile, examples/server_example_complex_array/Makefile, examples/server_example_config_file/Makefile, examples/server_example_control/Makefile, examples/server_example_deadband/Makefile, examples/server_example_dynamic/Makefile, examples/server_example_files/Makefile, examples/server_example_goose/Makefile, examples/server_example_logging/Makefile, examples/server_example_password_auth/Makefile, examples/server_example_setting_groups/Makefile, examples/server_example_simple/Makefile, examples/server_example_substitution/Makefile, examples/server_example_threadless/Makefile, examples/server_example_write_handler/Makefile, examples/sv_publisher/Makefile, examples/sv_subscriber/Makefile, examples/tls_client_example/Makefile, examples/tls_server_example/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsdotnet/IEC61850forCSharp/IEC61850.NET.csproj, dotnet/authenticate/authenticate.csproj, dotnet/client_example_async/client_example_async.csproj, dotnet/client_example_setting_groups/client_example_setting_groups.csproj, dotnet/control/control.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/IEC61850.NET.core.2.0/IEC61850.NET.core.2.0.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example1/client_example1.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example2/client_example2.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example3/client_example3.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example_authenticate/client_example_authenticate.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example_control/client_example_control.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example_datasets/client_example_datasets.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example_files/client_example_files.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example_log/client_example_log.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example_model_browsing/client_example_model_browsing.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example_reporting/client_example_reporting.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/client_example_tls/client_example_tls.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/goose_subscriber_example/goose_subscriber_example.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/server_example1/server_example1.csproj, dotnet/core/2.0/sv_subscriber_example/sv_subscriber_example.csproj, dotnet/datasets/datasets.csproj, dotnet/example1/example1.csproj, dotnet/example2/example2.csproj, dotnet/example3/example3.csproj, dotnet/files/files.csproj, dotnet/goose_subscriber/goose_subscriber.csproj, dotnet/log_client/log_client.csproj, dotnet/log_server/log_server.csproj, dotnet/model_browsing/model_browsing.csproj, dotnet/report_new_dataset/report_new_dataset.csproj, dotnet/reporting/reporting.csproj, dotnet/server1/server1.csproj, dotnet/server_example_access_control/server_example_access_control.csproj, dotnet/server_example_dynamic/server_example_dynamic.csproj, dotnet/server_goose_publisher/server_goose_publisher.csproj, dotnet/sv_subscriber/sv_subscriber.csproj, dotnet/tests/tests.csproj, dotnet/tls_client_example/tls_client_example.csproj, dotnet/tls_server_example/tls_server_example.csproj, tools/model_generator_dotnet/DynamicModelGenerator/DynamicModelGenerator.csproj, tools/model_generator_dotnet/SCLParser/SCLParser.csproj, tools/model_generator_dotnet/StaticModelGenerator/StaticModelGenerator.csproj, tools/model_generator_dotnet/Tools/Tools.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC (statically typed)
52.8/55Manageable file sizes28/704 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes205,687
source_files_sampled704
oversized_source_files28
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesdemos, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsdemos, examples
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

1,215GitHub stars
20contributors
164commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
195open 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 ★ / 608 ⇿
0Stars
608Forks
21Releases

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.

010020030040050060059562017-022021-112026-08
Major 0Minor 5Patch 14

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-29 12:47 UTC

6Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0dotnet/server_goose_publisher/server_goose_publisher.csproj
NuGetSystem.Data.DataSetExtensions4.5.0dotnet/server_goose_publisher/server_goose_publisher.csproj
All dependencies 5

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0direct
NuGetSystem.Data.DataSetExtensions4.5.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.11.1indirect
NuGetNUnit4.2.2indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter4.6.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 5 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.