Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 08:10 UTC

nunit / nunit-console

NUnit Console runner and test engine

C#MIT★ 235 stars⑂ 164 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗

nunit/nunit-console holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (48/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

NUnit.orgOrganization
139 followers51 public repossince Oct 2012

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 recency — last push 0 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 117 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year117
human_commit_share0.81
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 44 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 50 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~57.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count44
latest_release_tag4.0.0-beta.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release50
mean_days_between_releases57.2

Community & Adoption

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

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
38.4/60Stars — 235 stars
18.4/25Forks — 164 forks
7/15Watchers — 19 watchers
Inputs used
forks164
stars235
watchers19
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 53% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 95 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 31 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled95
top_contributor_share0.534
How it's scored
39.8/42Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
26.3/30PR acceptance — 723/826 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs723
open_issues51
closed_issues923
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.948
closed_unmerged_prs103
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.4/25Owner reach — 139 followers of nunit
24.5/25Track record — 51 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers139
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginnunit
public_repos51
account_age_days5,104

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnunit, nunit-console, testing, tdd, testing-tools, test-runner, dotnet, c-sharp, hacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 31 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — 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.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages21
unassessed_packages18
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 21 resolved dependencies against OSV. 18 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.3/40Legible commit history — 40 of 81 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.494
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — src/NUnitCommon/nunit.common.tests/nunit.common.tests.csproj, src/NUnitCommon/nunit.common/nunit.common.csproj, src/NUnitConsole/nunit4-console.tests/nunit4-console.tests.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 19 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestssrc/NUnitCommon/nunit.common.tests/nunit.common.tests.csproj, src/NUnitCommon/nunit.common/nunit.common.csproj, src/NUnitConsole/nunit4-console.tests/nunit4-console.tests.csproj, src/NUnitConsole/nunit4-console/nunit4-console.csproj, src/NUnitConsole/nunit4-netcore-console/nunit4-netcore-console.csproj, src/NUnitEngine/nunit.engine.tests/nunit.engine.tests.csproj, src/NUnitEngine/nunit.engine/nunit.engine.csproj, src/TestData/AppContextTest/AppContextTest.csproj, src/TestData/FakeExtensions/1.0/FakeExtensionsV1.csproj, src/TestData/FakeExtensions/2.0/FakeExtensions.csproj, src/TestData/InvalidTestNames/InvalidTestNames.csproj, src/TestData/NUnit3.0.1/NUnit3.0.1.csproj, src/TestData/NUnit3.0/NUnit3.0.csproj, src/TestData/NUnit3.10/NUnit3.10.csproj, src/TestData/NUnit3.2/NUnit3.2.csproj, src/TestData/WpfApp/WpfApp.csproj, src/TestData/aspnetcore-test/aspnetcore-test.csproj, src/TestData/mock-assembly-x86/mock-assembly-x86.csproj, src/TestData/mock-assembly/mock-assembly.csproj, src/TestData/notest-assembly/notest-assembly.csproj, src/TestData/windows-test/windows-test.csproj, src/TestData/wpf-test/WpfTest.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.19
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 1/203 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes73,785
source_files_sampled203
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

235GitHub stars
95contributors
117commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
44releases
1bus factor
51open 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 ★ / 164 ⇿
0Stars
164Forks
44Releases

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.

0408012016020016232016-082021-092026-10
Major 0Minor 9Patch 18

Each point covers 10 days.

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 · 2026-10-21 08:10 UTC

9Binary-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
10CI-Tests21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 20 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
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.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 39 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyModel3.1.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyModel8.0.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry4.3.0indirect
NuGetNSubstitute—indirect
NuGetNSubstitute2.0.3indirect
NuGetNSubstitute5.1.0indirect
NuGetNUnit—indirect
NuGetNUnit2.6.4indirect
NuGetNUnit3.14.0indirect
NuGetNUnit4.0.0-dev-07273indirect
NuGetNUnit4.2.2indirect
NuGetnunit-console-runner—indirect
NuGetnunit-extension-net10-pluggable-agent4.0.0indirect
NuGetnunit-extension-net462-pluggable-agent4.1.3indirect
NuGetnunit-extension-net80-pluggable-agent4.1.4indirect
NuGetnunit-extension-net90-pluggable-agent4.1.3indirect
NuGetNUnit.Agent.Core—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Analyzers—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Console—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Engine—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Engine.Api—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extensibility—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extensibility.Api—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extension.Net10PluggableAgent—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extension.Net10PluggableAgent4.0.0indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extension.Net462PluggableAgent—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extension.Net462PluggableAgent4.1.3indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extension.Net80PluggableAgent—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extension.Net80PluggableAgent4.1.4indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extension.Net90PluggableAgent—indirect
NuGetNUnit.Extension.Net90PluggableAgent4.1.3indirect
NuGetNUnitLite—indirect
NuGetNUnitLite3.14.0indirect
NuGetNUnitLite4.2.2indirect
NuGetSystem.ComponentModel.TypeConverter4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.MetadataLoadContext—indirect
NuGetTestCentric.Metadata2.0.0indirect
NuGetXMLUnit.NUnit4.Constraints—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 21 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 18 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.