Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 20:39 UTC

OData / AspNetCoreOData

ASP.NET Core OData: A server library built upon ODataLib and ASP.NET Core

C#Custom license★ 502 stars⑂ 185 forkssince Jun 2020View on GitHub ↗
#odata#asp-net-core

OData/AspNetCoreOData holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (79/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (48/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts 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

ODataOrganization
149 followers28 public repossince Jul 2011

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?

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

70Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence — 16/52 weeks with commits
13.4/18Commit volume — 30 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year30
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year16

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 50 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~50.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count50
latest_release_tag9.5.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases50.5
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

71Good
How it's scored
43.8/60Stars — 502 stars
18.9/25Forks — 185 forks
8/15Watchers — 28 watchers
Inputs used
forks185
stars502
watchers28
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 52 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled52
top_contributor_share0.731

Issue & PR responsiveness

63Moderate
How it's scored
20.3/42Issue resolution — 48% of issues closed
23.8/30PR acceptance — 294/370 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 14/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs294
open_issues517
closed_issues483
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.483
closed_unmerged_prs76
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

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
15.6/25Owner reach — 149 followers of OData
22.6/25Track record — 28 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers149
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginOData
public_repos28
account_age_days5,482
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

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
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
topicsodata, asp-net-core
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?

60Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

60Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 16 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 14/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

49Weak · 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)

46Weak
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
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 17/1,220 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes173,175
source_files_sampled1,220
oversized_source_files17

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
Inputs used
example_dirssample
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

502GitHub stars
52contributors
30commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
50releases
1bus factor
517open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 20:38 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 16 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 14/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 31 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAzure.Identity—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.NewtonsoftJson—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.OData—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.TestHost—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.NetAnalyzers—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.PublicApiAnalyzers—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Proxies—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.OData.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.OData.Edm—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.OData.ModelBuilder—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.OpenApi.OData—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Spatial—indirect
NuGetMoq—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
NuGetSwashbuckle.AspNetCore—indirect
NuGetSystem.Formats.Asn1—indirect
NuGetSystem.Net.Http—indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json—indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.RegularExpressions—indirect
NuGetxunit—indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—indirect
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 OData/AspNetCoreOData. Read them side by side →

60KY-Programming/generatorType Generator: No framework. No magic. Just code. 100% debuggable.Moderate100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnetThe OpenTelemetry .NET ClientExceptional98umbraco/Umbraco-CMSUmbraco is a free and open source .NET content management system helping you deliver delightful digital experiences.Exceptional94AzureAD/microsoft-identity-webHelps creating protected web apps and web APIs with Microsoft identity platform and Azure AD B2CExceptional94ChilliCream/graphql-platformWelcome to the home of the Hot Chocolate GraphQL server for .NET, the Strawberry Shake GraphQL client for .NET and Nitro the awesome Monaco based GraphQL IDE.Exceptional94SAP/cloud-sdk-jsUse the SAP Cloud SDK for JavaScript / TypeScript to reduce development effort when building applications on SAP Business Technology Platform that communicate with SAP solutions and services such as SAP S/4HANA Cloud, SAP SuccessFactors, and many others. Exceptional

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.