Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-01 21:24 UTC

Qowaiv / qowaiv-analyzers

Roslyn Analyzers

C#MIT★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Oct 2021View on GitHub ↗

Qowaiv/qowaiv-analyzers holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (42/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

QowaivOrganization
4 followers8 public repossince Mar 2017

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetQowaiv.Analyzers.CSharp2.7.1-460 days agoqowaivcodeanalysis

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
14.6/18Commit volume — 41 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year41
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year20

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~19.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv2.7.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases19.5
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars — 3 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
56.3/80Total downloads — 264,716 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesQowaiv.Analyzers.CSharp
dependents—
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads264,716
monthly_downloads—
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.98
How it's scored
29.4/42Issue resolution — 70% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 101/101 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs101
open_issues9
closed_issues21
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.7
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
5/25Owner reach — 4 followers of Qowaiv
18.9/25Track record — 8 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginQowaiv
public_repos8
account_age_days3,472

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 46 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesQowaiv.Analyzers.CSharp
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
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?

62Moderate · 16% of overall
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
4/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-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_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 80 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.8
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,560
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — .net.csproj, Pack/Pack.csproj, Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFixes/Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFixes.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackages.lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests.net.csproj, Pack/Pack.csproj, Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFixes/Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFixes.csproj, Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp/Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.csproj, Specs/Specs.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/196 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes23,634
source_files_sampled196
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3GitHub stars
3contributors
41commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
12releases
1bus factor
9open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-10-01 21:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 12/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
8SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 22
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces—Pack/Pack.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Sbom.Targets—Pack/Pack.csproj
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers.Unstable—Pack/Pack.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces—Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFixes/Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFixes.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp—Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp/Qowaiv.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.csproj
NuGetAwesomeAssertions—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetCodeAnalysis.TestTools—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.IO.Redist—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetNuGet.Packaging—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetNuGet.Protocol—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetNUnit—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetcoverlet.collector—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetAwesomeAssertions.Analyzers—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetNUnit.Analyzers—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetQowaiv—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetQowaiv.DomainModel—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetQowaiv.Validation.DataAnnotations—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common—Specs/Specs.csproj
NuGetSystem.Security.Cryptography.Xml—Specs/Specs.csproj
All dependencies 21

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 21 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAwesomeAssertions—direct
NuGetAwesomeAssertions.Analyzers—direct
NuGetCodeAnalysis.TestTools—direct
NuGetcoverlet.collector—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.IO.Redist—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Sbom.Targets—direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—direct
NuGetNuGet.Packaging—direct
NuGetNuGet.Protocol—direct
NuGetNUnit—direct
NuGetNUnit.Analyzers—direct
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—direct
NuGetQowaiv—direct
NuGetQowaiv.DomainModel—direct
NuGetQowaiv.Validation.DataAnnotations—direct
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers.Unstable—direct
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common—direct
NuGetSystem.Security.Cryptography.Xml—direct
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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