# wiremock/WireMock.Net — health index 75/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository wiremock/WireMock.Net by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 75 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/wiremock/WireMock.Net
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/wiremock/WireMock.Net
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/wiremock/WireMock.Net/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/w/wiremock/WireMock.Net.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-18
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.14.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 94/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 61/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 69/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 66/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | WireMock.Net is a flexible product for stubbing and mocking web HTTP responses using advanced request matching and response templating. Based on WireMock Java, but extended and different functionality. Full documentation can be found at https://wiremock.org/dotnet/. |
| Primary language | C# |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 1,675 |
| Forks | 241 |
| Created | 2017-01-17 |
| Last push | 2026-07-18 |
| Latest release | 2.12.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 141 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | wiremock, mock-server, http-listener, tdd, testing, mocking, mockwebserver, csharp, dotnet, http, request, response, docker, azure, aspire-hosting |

## Vitality — 94/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 25.6 / 36 | 37/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 141 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 11 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~8.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

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

## Community & Adoption — 86/100 (Excellent)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 52.3 / 60 | 1,675 stars |
| Forks | partial | 19.8 / 25 | 241 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 7.4 / 15 | 22 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 61/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 35/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 2.6 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 88% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 87 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 83/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 45.7 / 46.8 | 98% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 35.8 / 38.2 | 656/701 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 1.5 / 15 | Found 4/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 16.4 / 25 | 189 followers of wiremock |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 74 public repos, account ~9 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 64/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 74/100 (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 | met | 20 / 20 | 20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 15 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 69/100 (Moderate)

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 — 69/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | Found 4/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 5 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 | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | partial | 4 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

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

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 — 66/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/instructions.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 40/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | C# (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | C# (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/771 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | examples-Aspire/AspireApp1.AppHost/__admin/mappings/greet.proto, examples/WireMock.Net.Console.GrpcClient/greet.proto, examples/WireMock.Net.Console.GrpcClient/policy.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/Test/SubFolder/request.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/Test/greet.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/greet.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/greet1.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/collector/logs/v1/logs_service.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/collector/metrics/v1/metrics_service.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/collector/profiles/v1development/profiles_service.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/collector/trace/v1/trace_service.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/common/v1/common.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/logs/v1/logs.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/metrics/v1/metrics.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/profiles/v1development/profiles.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/resource/v1/resource.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/ot/opentelemetry/proto/trace/v1/trace.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/policy.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/Grpc/request.proto, test/WireMock.Net.Tests/__admin/mappings/greet.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## 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