Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 22:02 UTC

Azure / azure-webjobs-sdk-extensions

Azure WebJobs SDK Extensions

C#MIT★ 350 stars⑂ 211 forkssince May 2015View on GitHub ↗
#azure-webjobs-sdk#azure-functions

Azure/azure-webjobs-sdk-extensions holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (50/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

84
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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 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?

80Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

67Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
14.6/18Commit volume — 41 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year41
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 45 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 52 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~25.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count45
latest_release_tagcosmos-v4.16.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release52
mean_days_between_releases25.4
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?

72Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

71Good
How it's scored
41.2/60Stars — 350 stars
19.4/25Forks — 211 forks
10.5/15Watchers — 77 watchers
Inputs used
forks211
stars350
watchers77
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

73Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateyes
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?

78Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 51 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled51
top_contributor_share0.437

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good
How it's scored
30.1/42Issue resolution — 72% of issues closed
23.2/30PR acceptance — 423/548 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 22/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs423
open_issues124
closed_issues313
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.716
closed_unmerged_prs125
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?

59Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

42Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 28 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsazure-webjobs-sdk, azure-functions
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

69Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 28 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 22/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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_aggregate6.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

50Moderate · 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)

48Weak
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
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/232 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes42,952
source_files_sampled232
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 — sample, samples
Inputs used
example_dirssample, 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

350GitHub stars
51contributors
41commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
45releases
2bus factor
124open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10
6.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 22:01 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests28 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 22/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
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
All dependencies 38

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 38 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAzure.Storage.Blobs12.22.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNet.WebApi.Client5.2.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Http2.3.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Json2.3.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.WebApiCompatShim2.3.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Routing2.3.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Core.NewtonsoftJson2.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.Cosmos3.60.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs3.0.41indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs3.0.42indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs3.0.44indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions5.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.CosmosDB4.10.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.SendGrid3.1.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.Storage5.3.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.Timers.Storage1.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.Twilio3.0.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Host.Storage5.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.WebJobs.Host.TestCommon3.0.41indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Azure1.12.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Azure1.13.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection6.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Console9.0.8indirect
NuGetMoq4.12.0indirect
NuGetNCrontab.Signed3.3.3indirect
NuGetSendGrid9.29.3indirect
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common4.7.3indirect
NuGetSystem.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt6.34.0indirect
NuGetSystem.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt8.14.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Net.Http4.3.4indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Cryptography.Xml4.7.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json6.0.10indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json8.0.5indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.RegularExpressions4.3.1indirect
NuGetTwilio6.18.0indirect
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 Azure/azure-webjobs-sdk-extensions. Read them side by side →

94Azure/azure-functions-hostThe host/runtime that powers Azure FunctionsExceptional87Azure/azure-webjobs-sdkAzure WebJobs SDKExcellent19Azure/azure-functions-kafka-extensionKafka extension for Azure FunctionsCritical96serverless/serverless⚡ Serverless Framework – Effortlessly build apps that auto-scale, incur zero costs when idle, and require minimal maintenance using AWS Lambda and other managed cloud services.Exceptional94Azure/azure-functions-nodejs-libraryThe Node.js framework for Azure FunctionsExceptional91Azure/azure-functions-durable-jsJavaScript library for using the Durable Functions bindingsExcellent

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.