Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 08:26 UTC

nanoframework / nanoFramework.M5Stack

📦 Board support package for M5Stack, M5StickC and M5StickCPlus for .NET nanoFramework

C#MIT★ 119 stars⑂ 36 forkssince Aug 2019View on GitHub ↗
#hacktoberfest#library#dotnet#csharp#nanoframework#esp32#m5stack

nanoframework/nanoFramework.M5Stack holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (77/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (42/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

.NET nanoFrameworkOrganization
898 followers102 public repossince Nov 2016

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?

77Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

69Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume — 22 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year22
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year17

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~14.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.1.303
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases14.8

Community & Adoption

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

70Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

50Moderate
How it's scored
33.6/60Stars — 119 stars
12.9/25Forks — 36 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks36
stars119
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.558

Issue & PR responsiveness

56Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
23.9/30PR acceptance — 351/441 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs351
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs90
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

95Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
21.2/25Owner reach — 898 followers of nanoframework
25/25Track record — 102 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers898
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginnanoframework
public_repos102
account_age_days3,524
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

62Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 22 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.nanoframework.net
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest, library, dotnet, csharp, nanoframework, esp32, m5stack
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.nanoframework.net
docs_sitehttps://www.nanoframework.net
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 22 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
6.8/7.5Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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.

42Weak · 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)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackages.lock.json
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. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/64 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes19,489
source_files_sampled64
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

119GitHub stars
16contributors
22commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 08:26 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
7CI-Tests22 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 7
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 52

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 52 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetnanoFramework.CoreLibrary1.17.11indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.CoreLibrary1.17.12indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Graphics1.2.53indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Graphics.Core1.2.53indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Hardware.Esp321.6.40indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Hardware.Esp32.Rmt2.0.51indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Aw9523x1.0.33indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Axp1921.2.1016indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Axp21011.0.58indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Bmi2701.0.34indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Bmm1501.2.1016indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Button1.2.1016indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Buzzer1.2.1016indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Chsc65401.1.1016indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Common.NumberHelper1.2.862indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.ePaper1.0.852indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Ft6xx6x1.2.1017indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Ip53061.2.1016indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Ltr553AlsWa1.0.35indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.M5Pm11.0.6indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Mpu68861.2.1016indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Rtc1.2.1016indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Iot.Device.Ws28xx.Esp321.2.1016indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.ResourceManager1.2.32indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Runtime.Events1.11.37indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.Runtime.Native1.7.11indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Buffers.Binary.BinaryPrimitives1.2.862indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Collections1.5.75indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Device.Adc1.1.24indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Device.Dac1.5.26indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Device.Gpio1.1.62indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Device.I2c1.1.29indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Device.Model1.2.862indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Device.Pwm1.1.23indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Device.Spi1.3.89indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Device.WiFi1.5.149indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch1.2.862indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.IO.FileSystem1.1.93indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.IO.Ports1.1.139indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.IO.Streams1.1.96indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Math1.5.116indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Net1.11.60indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Numerics1.2.862indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Text1.3.42indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.System.Threading1.1.52indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.UnitsNet.ElectricCurrent5.76.15indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.UnitsNet.ElectricPotential5.76.15indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.UnitsNet.Frequency5.76.15indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.UnitsNet.Power5.76.15indirect
NuGetnanoFramework.UnitsNet.Temperature5.76.15indirect
NuGetNerdbank.GitVersioning3.10.91indirect
NuGetUnitsNet.nanoFramework.Temperature5.75.1indirect
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 nanoframework/nanoFramework.M5Stack. Read them side by side →

98unoplatform/unoOpen-source platform for building cross-platform native Mobile, Web, Desktop, and Embedded apps from a single C#/XAML codebase. Work from any IDE/CLI with Hot Reload, Visual Designer, MCPs, and Skills built for modern .NET workflows. 200M+ NuGet downloads.Exceptional98microsoft/kiotaOpenAPI based HTTP Client code generatorExceptional97jellyfin/jellyfinThe Free Software Media System - Server Backend & APIExceptional100dotnet/aspnetcoreASP.NET Core is a cross-platform .NET framework for building modern cloud-based web applications on Windows, Mac, or Linux.Exceptional100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional100dotnet/runtime.NET is a cross-platform runtime for cloud, mobile, desktop, and IoT apps.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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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