Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 09:57 UTC

xBimTeam / XbimEssentials

A .NET library to work with data in the IFC format. This is the core component of the Xbim Toolkit

C#Custom license★ 567 stars⑂ 185 forkssince Dec 2014View on GitHub ↗
#ifc#bim#cobie#iso16739#ifc4#ifc2x3#openbim#express#step21

xBimTeam/XbimEssentials holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (73/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated 11 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

xbimOrganization
298 followers24 public repossince Sep 2012

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?

55Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

63Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 11 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
15.7/18Commit volume — 55 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year55
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push11
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

44Weak
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 457 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~387.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagXbimEssentials_master_6.0.517
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release457
mean_days_between_releases387.2
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?

73Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

73Good
How it's scored
44.7/60Stars — 567 stars
18.9/25Forks — 185 forks
9.3/15Watchers — 48 watchers
Inputs used
forks185
stars567
watchers48
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

72Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
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?

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

44Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 33 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled33
top_contributor_share0.511

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good
How it's scored
32.4/42Issue resolution — 77% of issues closed
23.1/30PR acceptance — 113/147 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs113
open_issues116
closed_issues393
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.772
closed_unmerged_prs34
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.

Ownership & stewardship

88Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
17.8/25Owner reach — 298 followers of xBimTeam
22.2/25Track record — 24 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers298
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginxBimTeam
public_repos24
account_age_days5,065
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

46Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://xbimteam.github.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsifc, bim, cobie, iso16739, ifc4, ifc2x3, openbim, express, step21
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://xbimteam.github.io/
docs_sitehttps://xbimteam.github.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

44Weak
How it's scored
6/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
6.8/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

46Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes — 11/6,077 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes248,711
source_files_sampled6,077
oversized_source_files11

Key facts

567GitHub stars
33contributors
55commits, last 12 months
11days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
116open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 09:56 UTC

8Binary-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-Tests7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 1/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained8 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 27
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetFluentAssertions[7.2.0]Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetMartinCostello.Logging.XUnit0.7.1Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Console10.0.9Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.7.0Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter4.2.3Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework4.2.3Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetNeovolve.Logging.Xunit6.3.0Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetSerilog.Extensions.Logging10.0.0Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Console6.1.1Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Debug3.0.0Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit2.9.3Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.core2.9.3Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.abstractions2.0.3Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5Tests/Xbim.Essentials.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection8.0.1Xbim.Common/Xbim.Common.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions8.0.3Xbim.Common/Xbim.Common.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection10.0.9Xbim.Common/Xbim.Common.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions10.0.9Xbim.Common/Xbim.Common.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection8.0.1Xbim.Common/Xbim.Common.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions8.0.3Xbim.Common/Xbim.Common.csproj
NuGetFluentAssertions[7.2.0]Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests/Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging10.0.9Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests/Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.7.0Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests/Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit2.9.3Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests/Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests/Xbim.Essentials.NetCore.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Database.ManagedEsent2.0.3Xbim.IO.Esent/Xbim.IO.Esent.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Options10.0.9Xbim.IO.Esent/Xbim.IO.Esent.csproj
All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 21 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetFluentAssertions7.2.0direct
NuGetMartinCostello.Logging.XUnit0.7.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Database.ManagedEsent2.0.3direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection10.0.9direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection8.0.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging10.0.9direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions10.0.9direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions8.0.3direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Console10.0.9direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Options10.0.9direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.7.0direct
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter4.2.3direct
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework4.2.3direct
NuGetNeovolve.Logging.Xunit6.3.0direct
NuGetSerilog.Extensions.Logging10.0.0direct
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Console6.1.1direct
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Debug3.0.0direct
NuGetxunit2.9.3direct
NuGetxunit.abstractions2.0.3direct
NuGetxunit.core2.9.3direct
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5direct
NuGetlog4net2.0.5indirect
NuGetManagedEsent1.9.4indirect
NuGetNPOI2.2.1indirect
NuGetSharpZipLib0.86.0indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with xBimTeam/XbimEssentials. Read them side by side →

39GeometryGym/GeometryGymIFCC# classes to generate and parse OpenBIM IFC filesWeak90LTplus-AG/ifc-liteParse, view, query, edit, and export IFC, IDS, BCF, pointclouds and more AEC stuff. In the browser, server or desktop. Excellent89andymai/brepjsWeb CAD library with exact B-Rep geometryExcellent87datadrivenconstruction/OpenConstructionERPOpen-source construction ERP - BOQ, PDF/CAD/BIM takeoff, AI cost matching. 42 regional catalogues, 21 languages, 71 modules. AGPL-3.0. v3.0 - pip install openconstructionerpExcellent39bimangle/forge-engine-samplesForgeEngine can export your model to other formats, such as Autodesk Forge Viewer SVF/F2D, glTF/glb, Cesium 3D Tiles, etc. No need to rely on other online services, can be run offline.Weak99gofiber/fiber⚡️ Express inspired web framework written in GoExceptional

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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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