Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 23:08 UTC

ssg / SimpleBase

.NET library for encoding/decoding Base16, Base32, Base45, Base58, Base62, Base85, and Multibase.

C#Apache-2.0★ 172 stars⑂ 24 forkssince Oct 2014View on GitHub ↗

ssg/SimpleBase holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
overall / 100
Good

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.

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

Ownership

Sedat KapanoğluPersonal account
2,480 followers72 public repossince Apr 2010

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?

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence14/52 weeks with commits
16.8/18Commit volume74 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained16 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year74
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases24 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~48.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count24
latest_release_tag5.6.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases48.3
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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
36.2/60Stars172 stars
11.3/25Forks24 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks24
stars172
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth10 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.945
How it's scored
39.4/42Issue resolution94% of issues closed
23.9/30PR acceptance35/44 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs35
open_issues2
closed_issues31
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.939
closed_unmerged_prs9
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
24.4/25Owner reach2,480 followers of ssg
25/25Track record72 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,480
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginssg
public_repos72
account_age_days5,942
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsencoding, libraries, c-sharp
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?

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
7.5/7.5Maintained16 commit(s) and 2 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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
6.8/7.5Token-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_aggregate6.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
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_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. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/78 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes34,621
source_files_sampled78
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

172GitHub stars
10contributors
74commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
24releases
1bus factor
2open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 23:07 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained16 commit(s) and 2 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.15.8benchmark/Benchmark.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.DiagnosticsHub.BenchmarkDotNetDiagnosers18.7.37220.1benchmark/Benchmark.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.PublicApiAnalyzers5.6.0src/SimpleBase.csproj
NuGetIDisposableAnalyzers4.0.8src/SimpleBase.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.8.1test/SimpleBase.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.TestHost18.8.1test/SimpleBase.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit4.6.1test/SimpleBase.Tests.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.2.0test/SimpleBase.Tests.csproj
All dependencies 8

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.15.8direct
NuGetIDisposableAnalyzers4.0.8direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.PublicApiAnalyzers5.6.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.8.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.TestHost18.8.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.DiagnosticsHub.BenchmarkDotNetDiagnosers18.7.37220.1direct
NuGetNUnit4.6.1direct
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.2.0direct
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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