Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 21:05 UTC

ydb-platform / ydb-dotnet-sdk

YDB .NET SDK

C# · TSQLApache-2.0★ 116 stars⑂ 34 forkssince Sep 2021View on GitHub ↗

ydb-platform/ydb-dotnet-sdk holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Security (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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.

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)

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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

YDB PlatformOrganization

355 followers142 public repossince Aug 2021

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?

95Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

92Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
28.4/36	Commit cadence — 41/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 164 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	164
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	41

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 81 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~16.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	81
latest_release_tag	v0.33.3
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	16.7

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?

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

49Weak

How it's scored

33.4/60	Stars — 116 stars
12.7/25	Forks — 34 forks
3.3/15	Watchers — 5 watchers

Inputs used

forks	34
stars	116
watchers	5
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 58% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 24 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	24
top_contributor_share	0.585

Issue & PR responsiveness

62Moderate

How it's scored

27.4/42	Issue resolution — 65% of issues closed
26.2/30	PR acceptance — 366/419 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	366
open_issues	87
closed_issues	164
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.653
closed_unmerged_prs	53
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

89Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
18.3/25	Owner reach — 355 followers of ydb-platform
22.9/25	Track record — 142 public repos, account ~4 yr old

Inputs used

followers	355
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	ydb-platform
public_repos	142
account_age_days	1,813

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.9
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	50
security_posture_after_multiplier	30
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	59

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	3
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	51
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 51 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.

73Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	17,985

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

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
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.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.7/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/389 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C#
largest_source_bytes	90,720
source_files_sampled	389
oversized_source_files	2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

116GitHub stars

24contributors

164commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

81releases

1bus factor

87open issues

—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10

5.9aggregate

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 21:05 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
6	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 51

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
NuGet	AdoNet.Specification.Tests	`2.0.0-beta.2`	indirect
NuGet	BenchmarkDotNet	`0.15.1`	indirect
NuGet	CommandLineParser	`2.8.0`	indirect
NuGet	coverlet.collector	`10.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Dapper	`2.1.35`	indirect
NuGet	Dapper	`2.1.66`	indirect
NuGet	HdrHistogram	`2.5.0`	indirect
NuGet	linq2db	`6.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	linq2db	`6.1.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore	`10.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore	`9.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design	`9.0.10`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design	`9.0.5`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational	`10.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational	`9.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational.Specification.Tests	`10.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational.Specification.Tests	`9.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json	`7.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json	`8.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging	`5.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging	`8.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging	`9.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions	`8.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console	`5.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console	`8.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console	`8.0.0-rc.1.23419.4`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console	`8.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console	`9.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`17.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`17.12.0`	indirect
NuGet	Moq	`4.20.70`	indirect
NuGet	NLog.Extensions.Logging	`5.5.0`	indirect
NuGet	OpenTelemetry	`1.15.0`	indirect
NuGet	OpenTelemetry.Api	`1.15.3`	indirect
NuGet	OpenTelemetry.Exporter.InMemory	`1.15.0`	indirect
NuGet	OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol	`1.15.0`	indirect
NuGet	OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting	`1.15.0`	indirect
NuGet	OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Runtime	`1.15.0`	indirect
NuGet	Portable.BouncyCastle	`1.9.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.CommandLine	`2.0.0-beta4.22272.1`	indirect
NuGet	System.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource	`9.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt	`8.5.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.Threading.RateLimiting	`8.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	System.Threading.RateLimiting	`9.0.4`	indirect
NuGet	xunit	`2.9.3`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.runner.visualstudio	`2.9.3`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.runner.visualstudio	`3.1.3`	indirect
NuGet	Ydb.Protos	`1.2.0`	indirect
NuGet	Ydb.Sdk	`0.24.0`	indirect
NuGet	Ydb.Sdk	`0.33.2`	indirect
NuGet	Ydb.Sdk.Yc.Auth	`0.2.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 51 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol	`1.15.0`	indirect	moderate	3	`1.15.3`

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.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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