Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 22:29 UTC

saucecontrol / Blake2Fast

Optimized BLAKE2 hashing implementations in C#

C#MIT★ 113 stars⑂ 17 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗
#hashing#blake2#blake2b#blake2s

saucecontrol/Blake2Fast holds a health index of 28 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (48/100) and lowest on Vitality (18/100). It was last updated 690 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

28
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.

28
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 34 is calibrated to 28 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Clinton IngramPersonal account
96 followers33 public repossince Jun 2014

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?

18Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 690 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 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_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push690
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

44Weak
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,226 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~243.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv2.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,226
mean_days_between_releases243.3
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?

48Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

46Weak
How it's scored
33.2/60Stars — 113 stars
10/25Forks — 17 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks17
stars113
watchers4
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?

31At Risk · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk
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
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

16Critical
How it's scored
14/42Issue resolution — 33% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance — 0/1 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_prs0
open_issues2
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.333
closed_unmerged_prs1
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

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.3/25Owner reach — 96 followers of saucecontrol
23.2/25Track record — 33 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers96
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsaucecontrol
public_repos33
account_age_days4,412
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

47Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

38Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshashing, blake2, blake2b, blake2s
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?

30At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
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
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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 — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, 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)

46Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/42 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes50,010
source_files_sampled42
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

113GitHub stars
1contributors
0commits, last 12 months
690days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
2open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 22:29 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
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 21

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 21 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.10.14indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.13.12indirect
NuGetBlake2Core1.0.0indirect
NuGetblake2s-net0.1.0indirect
NuGetBlake31.1.0indirect
NuGetByteTerrace.Maths.Cryptography.Blake20.0.6indirect
NuGetIndexRange1.0.3indirect
NuGetIsopoh.Cryptography.Blake2b2.0.0indirect
NuGetKonscious.Security.Cryptography.Blake21.1.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.8.0indirect
NuGetNSec.Cryptography22.4.0indirect
NuGetSauceControl.Blake2Fast2.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Buffers4.5.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Data.HashFunction.Blake22.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Json4.7.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory4.5.5indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe4.5.3indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe4.7.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe6.0.0indirect
NuGetxunit2.6.6indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.5.6indirect
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 saucecontrol/Blake2Fast. Read them side by side →

60oconnor663/blake2_simdhigh-performance implementations of BLAKE2b/s/bp/sp in pure Rust with dynamic SIMDModerate78paulmillr/noble-hashesAudited & minimal JS implementation of hash functions, MACs and KDFs.Good24ron4fun/SharpHashSharpHash is a C# hashing library which provides an easy to use interface for computing hashes and checksums of data. It also supports state based (incremental) hashing.At Risk94gchq/CyberChefThe Cyber Swiss Army Knife - a web app for encryption, encoding, compression and data analysisExceptional93holochain/holochainThe current, performant & industrial strength version of Holochain on Rust.Exceptional88hynek/argon2-cffiSecure Password Hashes for PythonExcellent

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 statistics.