Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-15 03:07 UTC

tbm0115 / Consoul

Console interface extensions

C#LGPL-3.0★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Aug 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

tbm0115/Consoul holds a health index of 51 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (64/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (34/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

51
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

51
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Trais McAllisterPersonal account
16 followers36 public repossince Mar 2015@TrueAnalyticsSolutions

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetConsoul.Cli3.0.0-10 days agoconsoleconsoulterminalclicommandline
NuGetConsoul.Extensions.Configuration3.0.0-10 days agoconsoleconsoulterminalconfigurationroutines
NuGetConsoul.Extensions.Logging3.0.0-10 days agoconsoleconsoulterminallogging
NuGetConsoul.Text.Json3.0.0-10 days agoconsoleconsoulterminaljson
NuGetConsoul3.0.0-410 days agoconsoleconsoulterminal

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

64Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume — 15 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~151.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv3.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases151.4
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?

34At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars — 3 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (LGPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
46.3/80Total downloads — 28,737 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesConsoul.Cli, Consoul.Extensions.Configuration, Consoul.Extensions.Logging, Consoul.Text.Json, Consoul
dependents—
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads28,737
monthly_downloads—
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

50Moderate · 23% of overall
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
How it's scored
10.5/42Issue resolution — 25% of issues closed
27.8/30PR acceptance — 38/41 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs38
open_issues3
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.25
closed_unmerged_prs3
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
8.8/25Owner reach — 16 followers of tbm0115
23.4/25Track record — 36 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers16
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logintbm0115
public_repos36
account_age_days4,232
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 5 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 41 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesConsoul.Cli, Consoul.Extensions.Configuration, Consoul.Extensions.Logging, Consoul.Text.Json, Consoul
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

52Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://consoul.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsconsole-visualization
has_wikino
homepagehttps://consoul.dev
docs_sitehttps://consoul.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

56Moderate · 16% of overall
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
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages71
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 71 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.3/40Legible commit history — 38 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.38
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Consoul.Cli/Consoul.Cli.csproj, Consoul.Extensions.Configuration/Consoul.Extensions.Configuration.csproj, Consoul.Extensions.Logging/Consoul.Extensions.Logging.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesGemfile.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsConsoul.Cli/Consoul.Cli.csproj, Consoul.Extensions.Configuration/Consoul.Extensions.Configuration.csproj, Consoul.Extensions.Logging/Consoul.Extensions.Logging.csproj, Consoul.Test/Consoul.Test.csproj, Consoul.Tests/Consoul.Tests.csproj, Consoul.Text.Json/Consoul.Text.Json.csproj, Consoul/Consoul.csproj, scripts/DocsExamples/DocsExamples.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
52/55Manageable file sizes — 24/443 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes846,352
source_files_sampled443
oversized_source_files24

Key facts

3GitHub stars
1contributors
15commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
3open issues
NuGet, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-15 03:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1CI-Tests1 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json10.0.9Consoul.Extensions.Configuration/Consoul.Extensions.Configuration.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging10.0.9Consoul.Extensions.Logging/Consoul.Extensions.Logging.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.9.0Consoul.Tests/Consoul.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit2.6.6Consoul.Tests/Consoul.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.5.6Consoul.Tests/Consoul.Tests.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.0Consoul.Tests/Consoul.Tests.csproj
NuGetSystem.Text.Json8.0.5Consoul.Text.Json/Consoul.Text.Json.csproj
npmsharp0.35.5scripts/brand/package.json
All dependencies 71

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 63 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmsharp0.35.5direct
NuGetcoverlet.collector6.0.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json10.0.9direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging10.0.9direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.9.0direct
NuGetSystem.Text.Json8.0.5direct
NuGetxunit2.6.6direct
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.5.6direct
npm@emnapi/runtime1.11.3indirect
npm@img/colour1.1.0indirect
npm@img/sharp-darwin-arm640.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-darwin-x640.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-freebsd-wasm320.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-darwin-arm641.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-darwin-x641.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-arm1.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-arm641.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-ppc641.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-riscv641.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-s390x1.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-x641.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linuxmusl-arm641.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linuxmusl-x641.3.4indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-arm0.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-arm640.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-ppc640.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-riscv640.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-s390x0.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-x640.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-linuxmusl-arm640.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-linuxmusl-x640.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-wasm320.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-webcontainers-wasm320.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-win32-arm640.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-win32-ia320.35.5indirect
npm@img/sharp-win32-x640.35.5indirect
npmdetect-libc2.1.2indirect
npmsemver7.8.5indirect
npmtslib2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemscolorator1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.6indirect
RubyGemsem-websocket0.5.3indirect
RubyGemseventmachine1.2.7indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.4indirect
RubyGemsforwardable-extended2.6.0indirect
RubyGemshttp_parser.rb0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll3.10.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-relative-links0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sass-converter1.5.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-seo-tag2.9.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sitemap1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-watch2.2.1indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.5.2indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsliquid4.0.4indirect
RubyGemslisten3.10.1indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmercenary0.3.6indirect
RubyGemspathutil0.16.2indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.30.0indirect
RubyGemssafe_yaml1.0.5indirect
RubyGemssass3.7.4indirect
RubyGemssass-listen4.0.0indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.9.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 71 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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