Public record
Software health reportschema 0.13.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 16:19 UTC

Lombiq / Orchard-Azure-Application-Insights

Orchard Core and Orchard 1 module to enable easy integration of Azure Application Insights telemetry into Orchard. Useful for Azure-based cloud hosting.

C#BSD-3-Clause★ 18 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Mar 2015View on GitHub ↗
#orchard#orchard-cms#orchard-module#application-insights#hosting-suite#azure-application-insights#telemetry#azure#orchard-core#hosting

Lombiq/Orchard-Azure-Application-Insights holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Lombiq Technologies Ltd.Organization
115 followers215 public repossince Jul 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?

69Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

64Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
14.1/18Commit volume — 36 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year36
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

76Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 22 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~125.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv11.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases125.1

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

58Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

34At Risk
How it's scored
20/60Stars — 18 stars
8.7/25Forks — 12 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars18
watchers10
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 (BSD-3-Clause)
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?

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
11.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 47% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.47

Issue & PR responsiveness

89Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.6/30PR acceptance — 81/88 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs81
open_issues0
closed_issues25
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs7
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

87Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
14.8/25Owner reach — 115 followers of Lombiq
25/25Track record — 215 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers115
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginLombiq
public_repos215
account_age_days4,387
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsorchard, orchard-cms, orchard-module, application-insights, hosting-suite, azure-application-insights, telemetry, azure, orchard-core, hosting
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?

53Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

53Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
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 — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

24At Risk · 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)

13Critical
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
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_testsno
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.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/26 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes8,001
source_files_sampled26
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

18GitHub stars
17contributors
36commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
22releases
2bus factor
0open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 16:19 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetLombiq.Tests.UI14.2.0Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.Tests.UI/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.Tests.UI.csproj
NuGetLombiq.Privacy.Tests.UI10.0.1-alpha.0.osoe-935Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.Tests.UI/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.Tests.UI.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.AspNetCore2.23.0Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.Profiler.AspNetCore3.0.1Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.csproj
NuGetOrchardCore.Media.Azure2.1.0Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.csproj
NuGetOrchardCore.Module.Targets2.1.0Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.csproj
NuGetOrchardCore.ContentManagement2.1.0Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.csproj
NuGetOrchardCore.ContentTypes.Abstractions2.1.0Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.csproj
NuGetOrchardCore.DisplayManagement2.1.0Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.csproj
NuGetOrchardCore.ResourceManagement2.1.0Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.csproj
NuGetLombiq.HelpfulLibraries.OrchardCore12.5.0Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights/Lombiq.Hosting.Azure.ApplicationInsights.csproj
All dependencies 29

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 18 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetLombiq.HelpfulLibraries.OrchardCore12.5.0direct
NuGetLombiq.Privacy.Tests.UI10.0.1-alpha.0.osoe-935direct
NuGetLombiq.Tests.UI14.2.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.AspNetCore2.23.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.Profiler.AspNetCore3.0.1direct
NuGetOrchardCore.ContentManagement2.1.0direct
NuGetOrchardCore.ContentTypes.Abstractions2.1.0direct
NuGetOrchardCore.DisplayManagement2.1.0direct
NuGetOrchardCore.Media.Azure2.1.0direct
NuGetOrchardCore.Module.Targets2.1.0direct
NuGetOrchardCore.ResourceManagement2.1.0direct
NuGetAutofac3.5.2indirect
NuGetlog4net2.0.5indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights2.4.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.Agent.Intercept2.4.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.DependencyCollector2.4.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.Log4NetAppender2.2.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.PerfCounterCollector2.4.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.SnapshotCollector1.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNet.Mvc5.2.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNet.Razor3.2.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNet.WebApi.Client5.2.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNet.WebApi.Core5.2.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNet.WebPages3.2.3indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Owin3.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Web.Infrastructure1.0.0.0indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json6.0.4indirect
NuGetOwin1.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource4.4.0indirect
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 Lombiq/Orchard-Azure-Application-Insights. Read them side by side →

80Lombiq/Helpful-ExtensionsOrchard Core / Orchard 1.x module containing some handy extensions.Excellent81ops-ai/Toggly.FeatureManagementEnables teams to release software faster and safer, and with better results. Excellent77Lombiq/UI-Testing-ToolboxWeb UI testing toolbox for Orchard Core applications with Selenium. It discovers so many issues that you'll get impostor syndrome.Good96microsoft/ApplicationInsights-dotnetApplicationInsights-dotnetExceptional95microsoft/ApplicationInsights-node.jsMicrosoft Application Insights SDK for Node.jsExceptional77LayeredCraft/alexa-vox-craftGood

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 v0.13.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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