Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 22:01 UTC

Azure / azure-functions-openapi-extension

This extension provides an Azure Functions app with Open API capability for better discoverability to consuming parties

C#MIT★ 388 stars⑂ 199 forkssince Jul 2020View on GitHub ↗
#azure-functions#swagger-ui#hacktoberfest#azure#openapi#power-platform

Azure/azure-functions-openapi-extension holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (77/100) and lowest on Vitality (40/100). It was last updated 31 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

Microsoft AzureOrganization
15,035 followers2,723 public repossince Mar 2014

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?

40Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

26At Risk
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 31 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume — 3 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push31
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

62Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 23 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 287 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~158.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count23
latest_release_tagv1.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release287
mean_days_between_releases158.7
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?

77Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

70Good
How it's scored
42/60Stars — 388 stars
19.1/25Forks — 199 forks
8.5/15Watchers — 35 watchers
Inputs used
forks199
stars388
watchers35
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 60 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled60
top_contributor_share0.725

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good
How it's scored
23.6/42Issue resolution — 56% of issues closed
24.4/30PR acceptance — 187/230 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 21/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs187
open_issues197
closed_issues253
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.562
closed_unmerged_prs43
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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach — 15,035 followers of Azure
25/25Track record — 2,723 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers15,035
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginAzure
public_repos2,723
account_age_days4,519
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

54Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.OpenApi/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsazure-functions, swagger-ui, hacktoberfest, azure, openapi, power-platform
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.OpenApi/
docs_sitehttps://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.OpenApi/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 2 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 21/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

51Moderate · 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)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
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. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/461 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes28,211
source_files_sampled461
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, samples
has_mcp_signalno
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

388GitHub stars
60contributors
3commits, last 12 months
31days since last push
23releases
1bus factor
197open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 22:00 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests2 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 21/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 29

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 29 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAutoFixture4.17.0indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector3.2.0indirect
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild3.2.0indirect
NuGetFluentAssertions6.8.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Http2.2.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Core.NewtonsoftJson1.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Functions.Extensions1.1.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Functions.Worker1.10.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Core1.8.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Extensions.Http3.0.13indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Sdk1.7.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.Http3.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Script.Abstractions1.0.0-previewindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder2.1.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.EnvironmentVariables2.1.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Primitives2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Sdk.Functions4.1.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Sdk.Functions4.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.4.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.OpenApi1.2.3indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter3.0.0indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework3.0.0indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.1indirect
NuGetNSubstitute5.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.IO.FileSystem.Primitives4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Handles4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.InteropServices4.3.0indirect
NuGetYamlDotNet12.0.1indirect
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 Azure/azure-functions-openapi-extension. Read them side by side →

98swagger-api/swagger-uiSwagger UI is a collection of HTML, JavaScript, and CSS assets that dynamically generate beautiful documentation from a Swagger-compliant API.Exceptional100Azure/azure-sdk-for-jsThis repository is for active development of the Azure SDK for JavaScript (NodeJS & Browser). For consumers of the SDK we recommend visiting our public developer docs at https://docs.microsoft.com/javascript/azure/ or our versioned developer docs at https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk-for-js. Exceptional99Azure/azure-sdk-for-netThis repository is for active development of the Azure SDK for .NET. For consumers of the SDK we recommend visiting our public developer docs at https://learn.microsoft.com/dotnet/azure/ or our versioned developer docs at https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk-for-net. Exceptional99prowler-cloud/prowlerProwler is the world’s most widely used open-source cloud security platform that automates security and compliance across any cloud environment.Exceptional98microsoft/kiotaOpenAPI based HTTP Client code generatorExceptional98api-platform/coreThe server component of API Platform: hypermedia and GraphQL APIs in minutesExceptional

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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