Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 18:10 UTC

CommunityToolkit / dotnet

.NET Community Toolkit is a collection of helpers and APIs that work for all .NET developers and are agnostic of any specific UI platform. The toolkit is maintained and published by Microsoft, and part of the .NET Foundation.

C#Custom license★ 3,721 stars⑂ 394 forkssince Oct 2021View on GitHub ↗

CommunityToolkit/dotnet holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (88/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated 114 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Community ToolkitOrganization
1,589 followers30 public repossince Jul 2018

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?

53Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recencylast push 114 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence9/52 weeks with commits
17.4/18Commit volume86 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year86
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push114
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases21 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 114 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~118.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv8.4.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release114
mean_days_between_releases118.1
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?

88Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
57.9/60Stars3,721 stars
21.6/25Forks394 forks
10.2/15Watchers69 watchers
Inputs used
forks394
stars3,721
watchers69
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 85% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth62 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 16 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled62
top_contributor_share0.847
How it's scored
28.6/42Issue resolution68% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance256/283 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs256
open_issues188
closed_issues404
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.682
closed_unmerged_prs27
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
23/25Owner reach1,589 followers of CommunityToolkit
22.9/25Track record30 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,589
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginCommunityToolkit
public_repos30
account_age_days2,922
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
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests8 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.microsoft.com/dotnet/communitytoolkit/?WT.mc_id=dotnet-0000-bramin
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotnet, csharp, mvvm, netstandard, netframework, netcore, maui, wpf, uwp, uno-platform
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.microsoft.com/dotnet/communitytoolkit/?WT.mc_id=dotnet-0000-bramin
docs_sitehttps://docs.microsoft.com/dotnet/communitytoolkit/?WT.mc_id=dotnet-0000-bramin
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2/2.5CI-Tests8 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 16 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
53.7/55Manageable file sizes9/385 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes211,975
source_files_sampled385
oversized_source_files9

Key facts

3,721GitHub stars
62contributors
86commits, last 12 months
114days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
188open issues
package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 18:10 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
8CI-Tests8 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 16 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained0 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 18 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetDbs.Signed3.Nito.AsyncEx.Context5.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces10.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.HashCode6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Analyzer.Testing1.1.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFix.Testing1.1.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces4.12.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces5.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.14.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.CsWinRT2.2.0indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter4.0.1indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework4.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.ComponentModel.Annotations5.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Formats.Asn110.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory4.6.3indirect
NuGetSystem.Reactive6.1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe6.1.2indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json10.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions4.6.3indirect
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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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