Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 22:23 UTC

peteroupc / CBOR

A C# implementation of Concise Binary Object Representation (RFC 8949).

C#Unlicense★ 230 stars⑂ 30 forkssince Oct 2013View on GitHub ↗

peteroupc/CBOR holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (63/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated 44 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Peter OccilPersonal account
78 followers28 public repossince Oct 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetPeterO.Cbor4.5.5-21702 days agocbordataserializationbinaryjson

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

42Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 44 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume12 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push44
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases44 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 1,641 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~66.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count44
latest_release_tagv4.5.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,641
mean_days_between_releases66.9
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
38.3/60Stars230 stars
12.2/25Forks30 forks
6.2/15Watchers14 watchers
Inputs used
forks30
stars230
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Unlicense)
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
How it's scored
73/80Total downloads10,687,211 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesPeterO.Cbor
dependents
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads10,687,211
monthly_downloads
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 96% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.964
How it's scored
39.5/42Issue resolution94% of issues closed
22/30PR acceptance11/15 decided PRs merged
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_prs11
open_issues4
closed_issues64
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.941
closed_unmerged_prs4
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
13.6/25Owner reach78 followers of peteroupc
22.6/25Track record28 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers78
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginpeteroupc
public_repos28
account_age_days5,025
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on nuget
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 702 days ago
20/20Version history21 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesPeterO.Cbor
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish702

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

53Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
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
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
2.2/7.5Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
6.8/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

24At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
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. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
52.2/55Manageable file sizes5/100 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes390,657
source_files_sampled100
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

230GitHub stars
6contributors
12commits, last 12 months
44days since last push
44releases
1bus factor
4open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 22:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.NetAnalyzers9.0.0-preview.24454.1CBOR/CBOR.csproj
NuGetPolySharp1.13.2CBOR/CBOR.csproj
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.354CBOR/CBOR.csproj
NuGetPeterO.URIUtility1.0.0CBOR/CBOR.csproj
NuGetPeterO.Numbers1.8.2CBOR/CBOR.csproj
NuGetPeterO.DataUtilities1.1.0CBOR/CBOR.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.NetAnalyzers9.0.0-preview.24454.1CBORDocs2/CBORDocs2.csproj
NuGetPeterO.URIUtility1.0.0CBORDocs2/CBORDocs2.csproj
NuGetPeterO.DataUtilities1.1.0CBORDocs2/CBORDocs2.csproj
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.354CBORDocs2/CBORDocs2.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk15.9.0CBORTest/CBORTest.csproj
NuGetNUnit3.13.2CBORTest/CBORTest.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.NetAnalyzers9.0.0-preview.24454.1CBORTest/CBORTest.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter3.16.1CBORTest/CBORTest.csproj
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.354CBORTest/CBORTest.csproj
NuGetPeterO.Numbers1.8.2CBORTest/CBORTest.csproj
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.NetAnalyzers7.0.3direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.NetAnalyzers9.0.0-preview.24454.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk15.9.0direct
NuGetNUnit3.13.2direct
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter3.16.1direct
NuGetPeterO.DataUtilities1.1.0direct
NuGetPeterO.Numbers1.8.2direct
NuGetPeterO.URIUtility1.0.0direct
NuGetPolySharp1.13.2direct
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.2.0-beta.354direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.VersionCheckAnalyzer3.3.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeQuality.Analyzers3.3.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NetCore.Analyzers3.3.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NetFramework.Analyzers3.3.2indirect
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers.Unstable1.2.0.354indirect
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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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