Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 21:23 UTC

OfficeDev / Open-Xml-PowerTools

C# · HTMLMIT★ 702 stars⑂ 32 forkssince Jul 2015archivedforkView on GitHub ↗

OfficeDev/Open-Xml-PowerTools holds a health index of 11 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (69/100) and lowest on Vitality (1/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

11
overall / 100
Critical

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.

11
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 33 is calibrated to 27 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Microsoft 365 DeveloperOrganization
2,656 followers448 public repossince Feb 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?

1Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 2,720 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push2,720
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

63Moderate
How it's scored
46.2/60Stars — 702 stars
12.4/25Forks — 32 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks32
stars702
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
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?

69Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

41Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 64% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.641

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
15.8/30PR acceptance — 52/99 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs52
open_issues0
closed_issues172
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs47
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

99Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
24.6/25Owner reach — 2,656 followers of OfficeDev
25/25Track record — 448 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,656
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginOfficeDev
public_repos448
account_age_days4,525
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

5Critical · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

10Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

44Weak
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 17 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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project is archived
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_aggregate4.4
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.

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)

15Critical
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 — no data
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

94Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
48.8/55Manageable file sizes — 16/142 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes368,545
source_files_sampled142
oversized_source_files16

Key facts

702GitHub stars
15contributors
0commits, last 12 months
2,720days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
0open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 21:23 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 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 6/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
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
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetDocumentFormat.OpenXml2.8.1OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests/OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk15.7.2OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests/OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit2.4.0OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests/OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.4.0OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests/OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests.csproj
NuGetxunit.runner.console2.4.0OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests/OpenXmlPowerTools.Tests.csproj
NuGetDocumentFormat.OpenXml2.8.1OpenXmlPowerTools/OpenXmlPowerTools.csproj
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common4.5.0OpenXmlPowerTools/OpenXmlPowerTools.csproj
All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetDocumentFormat.OpenXml2.8.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk15.7.2direct
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common4.5.0direct
NuGetxunit2.4.0direct
NuGetxunit.runner.console2.4.0direct
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.4.0direct
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 OfficeDev/Open-Xml-PowerTools. Read them side by side →

100dotnet/aspnetcoreASP.NET Core is a cross-platform .NET framework for building modern cloud-based web applications on Windows, Mac, or Linux.Exceptional100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional100open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnetThe OpenTelemetry .NET ClientExceptional99PowerShell/PowerShellPowerShell for every system!Exceptional99App-vNext/PollyPolly is a .NET resilience and transient-fault-handling library that allows developers to express policies such as Retry, Circuit Breaker, Timeout, Bulkhead Isolation, and Fallback in a fluent and thread-safe manner. From version 6.0.1, Polly targets .NET Standard 1.1 and 2.0+.Exceptional98microsoft/fluentui-blazorMicrosoft Fluent UI Blazor components library. For use with ASP.NET Core Blazor applicationsExceptional

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.