# serionist/WriteableFileProviders — health index 69/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository serionist/WriteableFileProviders by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/serionist/WriteableFileProviders
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/serionist/WriteableFileProviders
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/serionist/WriteableFileProviders/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/s/serionist/WriteableFileProviders.svg
- Inspected: 2026-10-11
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 65/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 36/100 | Weak |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 59/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 83/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 66/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 68/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | One writeable IFileProvider for .NET: read, write, append, list and sign links for files on the local disk, Azure Blob Storage, Amazon S3, MinIO, Google Cloud Storage, Box and SharePoint, with the same API and the same meaning on every store. |
| Classification | library |
| Homepage | https://www.nuget.org/packages/WriteableFileProviders.Common |
| Primary language | C# |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2026-10-10 |
| Last push | 2026-10-11 |
| Latest release | v2027.0.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 13 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | amazon-s3, aspnetcore, azure-blob-storage, box, cloud-storage, csharp, dotnet, file-storage, file-upload, google-cloud-storage, microsoft-graph, minio, nuget, object-storage, presigned-url, s3, sharepoint, signed-url, storage-abstraction, ifileprovider |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| nuget | WriteableFileProviders.Box | 2026.10.10.4 | — |
| nuget | WriteableFileProviders.Minio | 2026.10.10.3 | — |
| nuget | WriteableFileProviders.Common | 2026.10.10.6 | — |
| nuget | WriteableFileProviders.AmazonS3 | 2026.10.10.3 | — |
| nuget | WriteableFileProviders.Physical | 2026.10.10.3 | — |
| nuget | WriteableFileProviders.AzureBlob | 2026.10.10.3 | — |
| nuget | WriteableFileProviders.SharePoint | 2026.10.10.4 | — |

## Vitality — 65/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 48/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 1.4 / 36 | 2/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 10.3 / 18 | 13 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |

### Release discipline — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 2 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 0 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~0 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 36/100 (Weak)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 59/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 28/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 6.5 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 71% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 2.7 / 13.5 | 2 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 39.2 / 42 | 93% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 24.8 / 30 | 33/40 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 32/32 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 45/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 4.3 / 25 | 3 followers of serionist |
| Track record | partial | 21.5 / 25 | 19 public repos, account ~10 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 7 package(s) on nuget |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 0 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 24 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 83/100 (Excellent)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 4 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 18 / 20 | 27 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://www.nuget.org/packages/WriteableFileProviders.Common |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 20 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 66/100 (Good)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 66/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 2.2 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | 27 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | met | 5 / 5 | all dependencies are pinned |
| SAST | partial | 4.5 / 5 | SAST tool detected but not run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 68/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 62/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .claude/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 17.2 / 40 | 32 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 74/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | src/WriteableFileProviders.AmazonS3/WriteableFileProviders.AmazonS3.csproj, src/WriteableFileProviders.AspNetCore/WriteableFileProviders.AspNetCore.csproj, src/WriteableFileProviders.AzureBlob/WriteableFileProviders.AzureBlob.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | C# (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | met | 10 / 10 | all dependencies are pinned |

### Code legibility for models — 99/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | C# (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.4 / 55 | 2/184 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 33/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | excluded | 0 / 40 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | not met | 0 / 40 | — |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch nuget package 'WriteableFileProviders.AspNetCore' from its registry
- No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt