Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-07 17:03 UTC

smith-chem-wisc / mzLib

Library for mass spectrometry projects

C#LGPL-3.0★ 28 stars⑂ 42 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗

smith-chem-wisc/mzLib holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (59/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

84
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

L.M. Smith GroupOrganization
12 followers43 public repossince Nov 2015

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?

94Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
26.3/36Commit cadence38/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume122 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year122
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year38

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases67 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 22 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~15.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count67
latest_release_tag1.0.583
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release22
mean_days_between_releases15.6
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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23.2/60Stars28 stars
13.4/25Forks42 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks42
stars28
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (LGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 23% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth24 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled24
top_contributor_share0.233
How it's scored
18.9/42Issue resolution45% of issues closed
24.2/30PR acceptance760/943 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs760
open_issues72
closed_issues59
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d26
prs_decided_30d29
issue_closed_ratio0.45
closed_unmerged_prs183
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
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
8/25Owner reach12 followers of smith-chem-wisc
24/25Track record43 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers12
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginsmith-chem-wisc
public_repos43
account_age_days3,909
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests24 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmass-spectrometry, chemical-formulas, isotopes, chemistry, spectra-files, proteogenomics, proteomics-data, mass-spectrometry-data
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?

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2/2.5CI-Tests24 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
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
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not 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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
17.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: OpenMcdf 2.3.1 (moderate 6.2)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
34.6/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 106 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages30
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 30 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history92 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.939
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapmzLib/BayesianEstimation/BayesianEstimation.csproj, mzLib/Chemistry/Chemistry.csproj, mzLib/Chromatography/Chromatography.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice31 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.31
toolchain_manifestsmzLib/BayesianEstimation/BayesianEstimation.csproj, mzLib/Chemistry/Chemistry.csproj, mzLib/Chromatography/Chromatography.csproj, mzLib/Development/Development.csproj, mzLib/FlashLFQ/FlashLFQ.csproj, mzLib/MassSpectrometry/MassSpectrometry.csproj, mzLib/MzIdentML/MzIdentML.csproj, mzLib/MzLibUtil/MzLibUtil.csproj, mzLib/Omics/Omics.csproj, mzLib/PredictionClients/PredictionClients.csproj, mzLib/Proteomics/Proteomics.csproj, mzLib/Quantification/Quantification.csproj, mzLib/Readers/Readers.csproj, mzLib/SpectralAveraging/SpectralAveraging.csproj, mzLib/Test/Test.csproj, mzLib/Transcriptomics/Transcriptomics.csproj, mzLib/UsefulProteomicsDatabases/UsefulProteomicsDatabases.csproj, mzLib/mzPlot/mzPlot.csproj, mzLib/pepXML/pepXML.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
53.5/55Manageable file sizes23/829 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes192,727
source_files_sampled829
oversized_source_files23

Key facts

28GitHub stars
24contributors
122commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
67releases
3bus factor
72open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 42 ⇿
0Stars
42Forks
66Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

010203040504122017-022021-102026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 66

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-07 17:02 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
8CI-Tests24 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 44
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/BayesianEstimation/BayesianEstimation.csproj
NuGetMathNet.Numerics5.0.0mzLib/BayesianEstimation/BayesianEstimation.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/Chemistry/Chemistry.csproj
NuGetlibtorch-cpu2.5.1mzLib/Chromatography/Chromatography.csproj
NuGetTorchSharp0.105.1mzLib/Chromatography/Chromatography.csproj
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.15.8mzLib/Development/Development.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/Development/Development.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.10.0mzLib/Development/Development.csproj
NuGetNUnit4.1.0mzLib/Development/Development.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter4.5.0mzLib/Development/Development.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/FlashLFQ/FlashLFQ.csproj
NuGetMathNet.Numerics5.0.0mzLib/FlashLFQ/FlashLFQ.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.ML3.0.1mzLib/FlashLFQ/FlashLFQ.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.ML.FastTree3.0.1mzLib/FlashLFQ/FlashLFQ.csproj
NuGetNetSerializer4.1.2mzLib/FlashLFQ/FlashLFQ.csproj
NuGetSharpLearning.Optimization[0.28.0]mzLib/FlashLFQ/FlashLFQ.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/MassSpectrometry/MassSpectrometry.csproj
NuGetMathNet.Numerics5.0.0mzLib/MassSpectrometry/MassSpectrometry.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/MzIdentML/MzIdentML.csproj
NuGetEasy.Common6.7.0mzLib/MzLibUtil/MzLibUtil.csproj
NuGetMathNet.Numerics5.0.0mzLib/MzLibUtil/MzLibUtil.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.ObjectPool9.0.0mzLib/MzLibUtil/MzLibUtil.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry5.0.0mzLib/MzLibUtil/MzLibUtil.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/Omics/Omics.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4mzLib/PredictionClients/PredictionClients.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/Proteomics/Proteomics.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/Readers/Readers.csproj
NuGetOpenMcdf2.3.1mzLib/Readers/Readers.csproj
NuGetOpenMcdf.Extensions2.3.1mzLib/Readers/Readers.csproj
NuGetSystem.Data.SQLite1.0.118mzLib/Readers/Readers.csproj
NuGetSystem.Runtime.InteropServices4.3.0mzLib/Readers/Readers.csproj
NuGetTopDownProteomics0.0.299mzLib/Readers/Readers.csproj
NuGetZstdSharp.Port0.8.7mzLib/Readers/Readers.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/SpectralAveraging/SpectralAveraging.csproj
NuGetMathNet.Numerics5.0.0mzLib/SpectralAveraging/SpectralAveraging.csproj
NuGetNett0.15.0mzLib/SpectralAveraging/SpectralAveraging.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/Transcriptomics/Transcriptomics.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/UsefulProteomicsDatabases/UsefulProteomicsDatabases.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4mzLib/UsefulProteomicsDatabases/UsefulProteomicsDatabases.csproj
NuGetTopDownProteomics0.0.299mzLib/UsefulProteomicsDatabases/UsefulProteomicsDatabases.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/mzPlot/mzPlot.csproj
NuGetOxyPlot.Wpf2.0.0mzLib/mzPlot/mzPlot.csproj
NuGetSharpLearning.Optimization0.28.0mzLib/mzPlot/mzPlot.csproj
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3mzLib/pepXML/pepXML.csproj
All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 27 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.15.8direct
NuGetCsvHelper32.0.3direct
NuGetEasy.Common6.7.0direct
NuGetlibtorch-cpu2.5.1direct
NuGetMathNet.Numerics5.0.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.ObjectPool9.0.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.ML2.0.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.ML3.0.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.ML.FastTree2.0.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.ML.FastTree3.0.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.10.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry5.0.0direct
NuGetNetSerializer4.1.1direct
NuGetNetSerializer4.1.2direct
NuGetNett0.15.0direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4direct
NuGetNUnit4.1.0direct
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter4.5.0direct
NuGetOpenMcdf2.3.1direct
NuGetOpenMcdf.Extensions2.3.1direct
NuGetOxyPlot.Wpf2.0.0direct
NuGetSharpLearning.Optimization0.28.0direct
NuGetSystem.Data.SQLite1.0.118direct
NuGetSystem.Runtime.InteropServices4.3.0direct
NuGetTopDownProteomics0.0.299direct
NuGetTorchSharp0.105.1direct
NuGetZstdSharp.Port0.8.7direct
NuGetGoogle.Protobuf3.28.3indirect
NuGetSharpZipLib1.4.2indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp2.88.9indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 30 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
OpenMcdf2.3.1directmoderate23.1.4

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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