After closer inspection there seems to be less common than expected.
@CharliePoole Is there a reason NUnit.Console and Nunit-Agents are not signed? Is that because of dynamic loading?

Partly for that reason, wrt the agents, but also because signing doesn't seem to offer any advantage for exe;s which are not referenced by other code. They could be, of course, although I see no advantage to signing the tests. How does the framework handle this nowadays?

WRT .props files, I've never been a big fan. Partly, it's just a matter of style. When I look at a project file, I like that all the settings are visible and I don't have to double-check one or more props files. Partly because, as a coach, I've been exposed to their use where people outside the dev team provide them, taking control away from the developers. Coming back to the engine after some time, however, I haven't wanted to change what the team put in place, so I retained the existing props file.

I'd favor only moving settings, which are required to be common to a props file. So, for output, I'd say that's not entirely common, TestData is handled differently. If we are using a key, then that should always be the same key but whether we are signing could vary. That said, if you think something will work better in the future when more people are hopefully working on this, please argue the case. :-)