Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 02:53 UTC

nanoframework / nf-interpreter

:gear: nanoFramework Interpreter, CLR, HAL, PAL and reference target boards

C · C++MIT★ 355 stars⑂ 196 forkssince Nov 2016View on GitHub ↗

nanoframework/nf-interpreter holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (79/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (55/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

.NET nanoFrameworkOrganization · verified domain
918 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?

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence35/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume198 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_year198
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year35
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases13 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 1,038 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~138.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv1.9.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,038
mean_days_between_releases138.8
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?

79Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.3/60Stars355 stars
19.1/25Forks196 forks
7/15Watchers19 watchers
Inputs used
forks196
stars355
watchers19
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 (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_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesdev.azure.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth67 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled67
top_contributor_share0.718
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
26.8/30PR acceptance3,011/3,368 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance5/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs3,011
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d14
prs_decided_30d15
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs357
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
21.3/25Owner reach918 followers of nanoframework
25/25Track record102 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers918
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginnanoframework
public_repos102
account_age_days3,580

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows10 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests24 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.nanoframework.net
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics19 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotnet, csharp, microcontroller, interpreter, clr, esp32, stm32, mcu, gpio, spi, pwm, i2c, adc, serial-communication, nanoframework-interpreter, firmware, pal, hacktoberfest, nanoframework
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?

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
4.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests24 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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_packages4
unassessed_packages1
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 4 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history77 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.77
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes13,180
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCMake/Scripts/bin2uf2/bin2uf2.csproj, targets/netcore/nanoFramework.nanoCLR.CLI/nanoFramework.nanoCLR.CLI.csproj, targets/netcore/nanoFramework.nanoCLR.Host/nanoFramework.nanoCLR.Host.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
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_testsno
lockfilespackages.lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCMake/Scripts/bin2uf2/bin2uf2.csproj, targets/netcore/nanoFramework.nanoCLR.CLI/nanoFramework.nanoCLR.CLI.csproj, targets/netcore/nanoFramework.nanoCLR.Host/nanoFramework.nanoCLR.Host.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC (statically typed)
53.9/55Manageable file sizes45/2,186 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes2,724,529
source_files_sampled2,186
oversized_source_files45

Key facts

355GitHub stars
67contributors
198commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 196 ⇿
0Stars
196Forks
13Releases

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.

0408012016020019142017-012021-112026-08
Major 1Minor 1Patch 2

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 02:53 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
9CI-Tests24 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 5

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetCommandLineParser2.9.1indirect
NuGetNerdbank.GitVersioning3.9.50indirect
NuGetSystem.IO.Ports8.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Principal.Windows5.0.0indirect
PyPIkconfiglibindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 4 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.

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.