Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 19:19 UTC

rabbitmq / rabbitmq-amqp-dotnet-client

.NET RabbitMQ client for AMQP 1.0

C#Custom license★ 23 stars⑂ 7 forkssince May 2024View on GitHub ↗

rabbitmq/rabbitmq-amqp-dotnet-client holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

34
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). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

RabbitMQOrganization
2,113 followers256 public repossince Jun 2009

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?

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence27/52 weeks with commits
15.4/18Commit volume51 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained17 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year51
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases24 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~29.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count24
latest_release_tagv1.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases29.6
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
21.8/60Stars23 stars
6.5/25Forks7 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars23
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

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
11.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 50% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.505
How it's scored
40.2/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance121/126 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs121
open_issues2
closed_issues43
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.956
closed_unmerged_prs5
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
23.9/25Owner reach2,113 followers of rabbitmq
25/25Track record256 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,113
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginrabbitmq
public_repos256
account_age_days6,241
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

83Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests18 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.rabbitmq.com/client-libraries/amqp-client-libraries
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsamqp10, messaging, rabbitmq, amqp-client, amqp1-0
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.rabbitmq.com/client-libraries/amqp-client-libraries
docs_sitehttps://www.rabbitmq.com/client-libraries/amqp-client-libraries
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests18 out of 19 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
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained17 commit(s) and 2 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
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.3
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier40
security_posture_before_jurisdiction53
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

82Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes11,240
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
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_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
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)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/115 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes35,315
source_files_sampled115
oversized_source_files0
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 examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

23GitHub stars
9contributors
51commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
24releases
1bus factor
2open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 · 2026-07-20 19:19 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
9CI-Tests18 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained17 commit(s) and 2 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetAMQPNetLiteBuild.csproj
NuGetAMQPNetLite.CoreRabbitMQ.AMQP.Client/RabbitMQ.AMQP.Client.csproj
NuGetAMQPNetLite.WebSocketsRabbitMQ.AMQP.Client/RabbitMQ.AMQP.Client.csproj
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSourceRabbitMQ.AMQP.Client/RabbitMQ.AMQP.Client.csproj
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.UnsafeRabbitMQ.AMQP.Client/RabbitMQ.AMQP.Client.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.HashCodeRabbitMQ.AMQP.Client/RabbitMQ.AMQP.Client.csproj
NuGetEasyNetQ.Management.ClientTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.TestingTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DiagnosticsTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.SdkTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetRabbitMQ.ClientTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetSystem.IdentityModel.Tokens.JwtTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetSystem.Text.JsonTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetxunitTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudioTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetXunit.SkippableFactTests/Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collectorTests/Tests.csproj
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 17 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAMQPNetLitedirect
NuGetAMQPNetLite.Coredirect
NuGetAMQPNetLite.WebSocketsdirect
NuGetcoverlet.collectordirect
NuGetEasyNetQ.Management.Clientdirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.HashCodedirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Diagnosticsdirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.Testingdirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdkdirect
NuGetRabbitMQ.Clientdirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSourcedirect
NuGetSystem.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwtdirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafedirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Jsondirect
NuGetxunitdirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudiodirect
NuGetXunit.SkippableFactdirect
NuGetOpenTelemetryindirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Exporter.Consoleindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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