Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 20:25 UTC

Azure / azure-cli-dev-tools

Developer utilities for Azure CLI command module and extension developers.

PythonMIT★ 91 stars⑂ 134 forkssince Nov 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

Azure/azure-cli-dev-tools holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 12 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Microsoft AzureOrganization · verified domain
15,320 followers2,726 public repossince Mar 2014

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIazdev0.2.13169,42011366 days agoazure
PyPIazure-cli-diff-tool0.1.1194,03711333 days ago—

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 12 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
11.3/18Commit volume — 17 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year17
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push12
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 66 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~48.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.2.13
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release66
mean_days_between_releases48.6
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
How it's scored
31.7/60Stars — 91 stars
17.7/25Forks — 134 forks
14.1/15Watchers — 343 watchers
Inputs used
forks134
stars91
watchers343
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesdev.azure.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
69.7/80Monthly downloads — 169,420 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesazdev
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads169,420
unverified_packages_excludedazure-cli-diff-tool
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?

85Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 22% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 30 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.222
How it's scored
17.8/42Issue resolution — 42% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance — 278/316 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs278
open_issues122
closed_issues90
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.425
closed_unmerged_prs38
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 15,320 followers of Azure
25/25Track record — 2,726 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers15,320
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginAzure
public_repos2,726
account_age_days4,576

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 66 days ago
20/20Version history — 113 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesazdev, azure-cli-diff-tool
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish66

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8, .pylintrc, tox.ini
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 18 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsazure, cli, microsoft, devops, devtools, developer-tools, developer
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 18 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
15.8/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: requests 2.32.5 (moderate 5.5), setuptools 79.0.1 (moderate 6.1)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
35.2/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 172 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages73
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 2
direct_affected_packages2
Matched the pypi:azdev@0.2.13 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 73 packages. 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 95 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.95
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8, .pylintrc, tox.ini
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/106 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes30,907
source_files_sampled106
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

91GitHub stars
30contributors
17commits, last 12 months
12days since last push
100releases
3bus factor
122open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 134 ⇿
0Stars
134Forks
100Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

025507510012515013242019-022022-112026-08
Major 0Minor 1Patch 99

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 20:24 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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
6CI-Tests18 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 27
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIdeepdiff~=8.6.1azure-cli-diff-tool/pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests~=2.32.3azure-cli-diff-tool/pyproject.toml
PyPIazure-multiapi-storage—pyproject.toml
PyPIbuild—pyproject.toml
PyPIdocutils—pyproject.toml
PyPIflake8—pyproject.toml
PyPIgitpython—pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2—pyproject.toml
PyPIknack—pyproject.toml
PyPIpylint>=4,<5pyproject.toml
PyPIpytest-xdist—pyproject.toml
PyPIpytest-forked—pyproject.toml
PyPIpytest>=5.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml—pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests—pyproject.toml
PyPIsphinx==1.6.7pyproject.toml
PyPItox—pyproject.toml
PyPIjsbeautifier~=1.14.7pyproject.toml
PyPIdeepdiff~=8.6.1pyproject.toml
PyPIazure-cli-diff-tool~=0.1.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpackaging—pyproject.toml
PyPIpkginfo—pyproject.toml
PyPItomli—pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm—pyproject.toml
PyPIsetuptools>=78.1.1pyproject.toml
PyPIwheel—pyproject.toml
PyPImicrosoft-security-utilities-secret-masker~=1.0.0b4pyproject.toml
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIazure-cli-diff-tool—direct
PyPIdeepdiff—direct
PyPIjsbeautifier—direct
PyPImicrosoft-security-utilities-secret-masker—direct
PyPIpylint—direct
PyPIpytest—direct
PyPIrequests—direct
PyPIsetuptools—direct
PyPIsphinx1.6.7direct
Dependency advisories 2

Installing pypi:azdev@0.2.13 pulls in 73 packages, direct and transitive: 2 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
requests2.32.5directmoderate22.33.0
setuptools79.0.1directmoderate283.0.0

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 — PyPI.