Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 22:00 UTC

azure / azure-documentdb-changefeedprocessor-dotnet

This library provides a host for distributing change feed events in partitioned collection across multiple observers. Instances of the host can scale up (by adding) or down (by removing) dynamically, and the load will be automatically distributed among active instances in about-equal way.

C#Custom license★ 51 stars⑂ 22 forkssince Nov 2017View on GitHub ↗
#azure-cosmos-db#azure

azure/azure-documentdb-changefeedprocessor-dotnet holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (73/100) and lowest on Vitality (18/100). It was last updated 1159 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

39
overall / 100
Weak

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.

39
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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Microsoft AzureOrganization
15,035 followers2,723 public repossince Mar 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?

18Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 1,159 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1,159
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

44Weak
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,177 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~151.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv2.3.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,177
mean_days_between_releases151.7
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

48Weak
How it's scored
27.6/60Stars — 51 stars
11/25Forks — 22 forks
9.1/15Watchers — 45 watchers
Inputs used
forks22
stars51
watchers45
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

59Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
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?

73Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

44Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.511

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent
How it's scored
29.7/42Issue resolution — 71% of issues closed
26.8/30PR acceptance — 93/104 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 22/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs93
open_issues19
closed_issues46
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.708
closed_unmerged_prs11
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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach — 15,035 followers of Azure
25/25Track record — 2,723 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers15,035
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginAzure
public_repos2,723
account_age_days4,519
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

25At Risk · 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 24 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsazure-cosmos-db, azure
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?

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

50Moderate
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 24 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
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 22/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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_aggregate5
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.

25At 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 1/145 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes90,841
source_files_sampled145
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

51GitHub stars
11contributors
0commits, last 12 months
1,159days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
19open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 22:00 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 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 22/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 11

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAutoFixture4.1.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.DocumentDB2.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.DocumentDB.Core2.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.4.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json1.1.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk15.5.0indirect
NuGetMoq4.8.1indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json9.0.1indirect
NuGetStyleCop.Analyzers1.1.0-beta004indirect
NuGetxunit2.3.1indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.3.1indirect
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 azure/azure-documentdb-changefeedprocessor-dotnet. Read them side by side →

100Azure/azure-sdk-for-jsThis repository is for active development of the Azure SDK for JavaScript (NodeJS & Browser). For consumers of the SDK we recommend visiting our public developer docs at https://docs.microsoft.com/javascript/azure/ or our versioned developer docs at https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk-for-js. Exceptional99Azure/azure-sdk-for-netThis repository is for active development of the Azure SDK for .NET. For consumers of the SDK we recommend visiting our public developer docs at https://learn.microsoft.com/dotnet/azure/ or our versioned developer docs at https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk-for-net. Exceptional99prowler-cloud/prowlerProwler is the world’s most widely used open-source cloud security platform that automates security and compliance across any cloud environment.Exceptional98bridgecrewio/checkovPrevent cloud misconfigurations and find vulnerabilities during build-time in infrastructure as code, container images and open source packages with Checkov by Bridgecrew.Exceptional98kubernetes-sigs/cloud-provider-azureCloud provider for AzureExceptional98Netflix/metaflowBuild, Manage and Deploy AI/ML SystemsExceptional

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.