Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 21:14 UTC

rzander / jaindb

Blockchain based database

C# · PowerShellMIT★ 30 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Nov 2017View on GitHub ↗
#blockchain#database#archive#json

rzander/jaindb holds a health index of 27 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (41/100) and lowest on Security (21/100). It was last updated 212 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

27
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.

27
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 33 is calibrated to 27 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Roger ZanderPersonal account
252 followers22 public repossince Apr 2015www.romawo.com

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

26At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

7Critical
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 212 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume — 1 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push212
active_weeks_last_year1

Release discipline

54Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 49 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,803 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~11.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count49
latest_release_tag1.0.1.85
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,803
mean_days_between_releases11.1

Community & Adoption

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

41Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

33At Risk
How it's scored
23.7/60Stars — 30 stars
5.8/25Forks — 6 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars30
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

41Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

53Moderate
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
3.8/30PR acceptance — 2/16 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs2
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs14
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.

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.3/25Owner reach — 252 followers of rzander
21.9/25Track record — 22 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers252
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginrzander
public_repos22
account_age_days4,114
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

35Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsblockchain, database, archive, json
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?

21At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

21At Risk
How it's scored
6/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate2.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Token-Permissions. 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.

40Weak · 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)

26At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
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_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
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

95Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
49.6/55Manageable file sizes — 4/41 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes298,951
source_files_sampled41
oversized_source_files4

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
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

30GitHub stars
1contributors
1commits, last 12 months
212days since last push
49releases
1bus factor
0open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.1 / 10
2.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 21:14 UTC

8Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.6.3UnitTestProject1/UnitTestProject1.csproj
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter3.1.1UnitTestProject1/UnitTestProject1.csproj
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework3.1.1UnitTestProject1/UnitTestProject1.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.0UnitTestProject1/UnitTestProject1.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Functions.Extensions1.1.0fnJainDB/fnJainDB.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Sdk.Functions3.1.1fnJainDB/fnJainDB.csproj
NuGetjaindb.base2.0.0.5fnJainDB6/fnJainDB6.csproj
NuGetjaindb.storage.CosmosDB2.0.0.7fnJainDB6/fnJainDB6.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Functions.Extensions1.1.0fnJainDB6/fnJainDB6.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Sdk.Functions4.2.0fnJainDB6/fnJainDB6.csproj
All dependencies 41

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.0direct
NuGetjaindb.base1.2.5direct
NuGetjaindb.base2.0.0.5direct
NuGetjaindb.base2.0.0.6direct
NuGetjaindb.base2.0.0.7direct
NuGetjaindb.base2.0.0.8direct
NuGetjaindb.storage.CosmosDB2.0.0.7direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Functions.Extensions1.1.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Sdk.Functions3.1.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Sdk.Functions4.2.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.6.3direct
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter3.1.1direct
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework3.1.1direct
NuGetAzure.Storage.Blobs12.19.0indirect
NuGetCostura.Fody5.7.0indirect
NuGetFody6.6.4indirect
NuGetFody6.8.0indirect
NuGetJsonDiffPatch.Net2.3.0indirect
NuGetJsonDiffPatch.Net2.5.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.AspNetCore2.17.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Authentication2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.ResponseCompression2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Server.HttpSys2.2.6indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.StaticFiles2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Cosmos3.36.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory5.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Caching.SqlServer7.0.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Debug5.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Web.BrowserLink2.2.0indirect
NuGetMoon.AspNetCore.Authentication.Basic4.0.1indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.1indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.2indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4indirect
NuGetRethinkDb.Driver2.3.150indirect
NuGetStackExchange.Redis2.6.122indirect
NuGetSystem.Data.SqlClient4.8.5indirect
NuGetSystem.Linq.Async6.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Caching7.0.0indirect
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 rzander/jaindb. Read them side by side →

94NLog/NLogNLog - Flexible and Structured Logging for various .NET PlatformsExceptional94docling-project/docling-coreDocling core data types and transformationsExceptional97ravendb/ravendbACID Document DatabaseExceptional96reactiveui/refitThe automatic type-safe REST library for .NET Core, Xamarin and .NET. Heavily inspired by Square's Retrofit library, Refit turns your REST API into a live interface.Exceptional96Azure/data-api-builderData API builder provides modern REST, GraphQL endpoints and MCP tools to your Azure Databases and on-prem stores.Exceptional95AzureAD/azure-activedirectory-identitymodel-extensions-for-dotnetIdentityModel extensions for .NETExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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