Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-23 00:48 UTC

Azure / setup-helm

Github Action for installing Helm

TypeScriptMIT★ 187 stars⑂ 73 forkssince Sep 2019View on GitHub ↗

#action #actions #azure #github-action #github-actions #helm #k8s #kubernetes #setup

Azure/setup-helm holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (91/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (58/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 6 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Microsoft AzureOrganization

15,066 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?

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

84Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 2 days ago
21.5/36	Commit cadence — 31/52 weeks with commits
16/18	Commit volume — 60 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	60
human_commit_share	0.31
days_since_last_push	2
active_weeks_last_year	31

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 29 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~148.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	17
latest_release_tag	v5.0.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	29
mean_days_between_releases	148.4

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?

71Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

59Moderate

How it's scored

36.8/60	Stars — 187 stars
15.5/25	Forks — 73 forks
6.5/15	Watchers — 16 watchers

Inputs used

forks	73
stars	187
watchers	16
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	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	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

91Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

91Excellent

How it's scored

48.6/54	Bus factor — 6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 16% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 31 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	6
contributors_sampled	31
top_contributor_share	0.159

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent

How it's scored

34.1/42	Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
21.3/30	PR acceptance — 168/237 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	168
open_issues	10
closed_issues	43
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.811
closed_unmerged_prs	69
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

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25	Owner reach — 15,066 followers of Azure
25/25	Track record — 2,723 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	15,066
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	Azure
public_repos	2,723
account_age_days	4,524

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 9 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	action, actions, azure, github-action, github-actions, helm, k8s, kubernetes, setup
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?

77Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

71Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
2/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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	7.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	151
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
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 151 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 31 of 31 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 69 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
4/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.69

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/4 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	TypeScript
largest_source_bytes	29,602
source_files_sampled	4
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

187GitHub stars

31contributors

60commits, last 12 months

2days since last push

17releases

6bus factor

10open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 73 ⇿

0Stars

73Forks

16Releases

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.

Major 2Minor 3Patch 2

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10

7.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-23 00:48 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 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
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
4	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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

Direct dependencies 6

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
npm	@actions/core	`^3.0.1`	package.json
npm	@actions/exec	`^3.0.0`	package.json
npm	@actions/io	`^3.0.2`	package.json
npm	@actions/tool-cache	`4.0.0`	package.json
npm	@octokit/action	`^8.0.4`	package.json
npm	semver	`^7.8.5`	package.json

All dependencies 151

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 145 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@actions/core	`3.0.1`	direct
npm	@actions/exec	`3.0.0`	direct
npm	@actions/io	`3.0.2`	direct
npm	@actions/tool-cache	`4.0.0`	direct
npm	@octokit/action	`8.0.4`	direct
npm	semver	`7.8.5`	direct
npm	@actions/http-client	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	@emnapi/core	`1.11.1`	indirect
npm	@emnapi/runtime	`1.11.1`	indirect
npm	@emnapi/wasi-threads	`1.2.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/aix-ppc64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ia32	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-loong64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-mips64el	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ppc64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-riscv64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-s390x	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openharmony-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/sunos-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-ia32	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.5.5`	indirect
npm	@napi-rs/wasm-runtime	`1.1.6`	indirect
npm	@octokit/auth-action	`6.0.2`	indirect
npm	@octokit/auth-token	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/core	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	@octokit/endpoint	`11.0.2`	indirect
npm	@octokit/graphql	`9.0.3`	indirect
npm	@octokit/openapi-types	`27.0.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/plugin-paginate-rest	`14.0.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/plugin-rest-endpoint-methods	`17.0.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/request	`10.0.7`	indirect
npm	@octokit/request-error	`7.1.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/types	`16.0.0`	indirect
npm	@oxc-project/types	`0.139.0`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-android-arm64	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-darwin-arm64	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-darwin-x64	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-freebsd-x64	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-gnu	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-musl	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-s390x-gnu	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-gnu	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-musl	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-openharmony-arm64	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-wasm32-wasi	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-win32-arm64-msvc	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-win32-x64-msvc	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/pluginutils	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	@standard-schema/spec	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@tybys/wasm-util	`0.10.3`	indirect
npm	@types/chai	`5.2.3`	indirect
npm	@types/deep-eql	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`1.0.9`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`26.1.1`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-aix-ppc64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-darwin-arm64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-darwin-x64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-freebsd-arm64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-freebsd-x64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-linux-arm	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-linux-arm64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-linux-loong64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-linux-mips64el	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-linux-ppc64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-linux-riscv64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-linux-s390x	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-linux-x64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-netbsd-arm64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-netbsd-x64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-openbsd-arm64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-openbsd-x64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-sunos-x64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-win32-arm64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@typescript/typescript-win32-x64	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@vitest/expect	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/mocker	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/pretty-format	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/runner	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/snapshot	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/spy	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/utils	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	assertion-error	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	before-after-hook	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	chai	`6.2.2`	indirect
npm	convert-source-map	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	detect-libc	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	es-module-lexer	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	esbuild	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	estree-walker	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	expect-type	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	fast-content-type-parse	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	fdir	`6.5.0`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	husky	`9.1.7`	indirect
npm	lightningcss	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-android-arm64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-arm64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-x64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-freebsd-x64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-musl	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-gnu	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-musl	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-x64-msvc	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`0.30.21`	indirect
npm	nanoid	`3.3.16`	indirect
npm	obug	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	pathe	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`4.0.5`	indirect
npm	postcss	`8.5.18`	indirect
npm	prettier	`3.9.5`	indirect
npm	rolldown	`1.1.5`	indirect
npm	siginfo	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	source-map-js	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	stackback	`0.0.2`	indirect
npm	std-env	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	tinybench	`2.9.0`	indirect
npm	tinyexec	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	tinyglobby	`0.2.17`	indirect
npm	tinyrainbow	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	tslib	`2.8.1`	indirect
npm	tunnel	`0.0.6`	indirect
npm	typescript	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	undici	`6.27.0`	indirect
npm	undici	`7.28.0`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`8.3.0`	indirect
npm	universal-user-agent	`7.0.3`	indirect
npm	vite	`8.1.4`	indirect
npm	vitest	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	why-is-node-running	`2.3.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 151 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records