Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 05:00 UTC

devcontainers / images

Repository for pre-built dev container images published under mcr.microsoft.com/devcontainers

Shell · JavaScriptMIT★ 2,126 stars⑂ 965 forkssince May 2022View on GitHub ↗

devcontainers/images holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (94/100) and lowest on Security (66/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

devcontainersOrganization · verified domain
3,572 followers13 public repossince Mar 2022

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?

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
24.9/36Commit cadence — 36/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 131 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year131
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year36

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 9 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~24.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.4.33
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release9
mean_days_between_releases24.8
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?

71Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
54/60Stars — 2,126 stars
24.9/25Forks — 965 forks
10.1/15Watchers — 67 watchers
Inputs used
forks965
stars2,126
watchers67
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
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 62 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled62
top_contributor_share0.681
How it's scored
38.3/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
23.9/30PR acceptance — 841/1,056 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs841
open_issues48
closed_issues494
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio0.911
closed_unmerged_prs215
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
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 3,572 followers of devcontainers
17.3/25Track record — 13 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,572
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logindevcontainers
public_repos13
account_age_days1,634

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

94Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 25 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.js, eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs
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_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://containers.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscontainers, devcontainers
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://containers.dev
docs_sitehttps://containers.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
2/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 23 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories23
affected_packages6
assessed_packages111
unassessed_packages10
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 5
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 111 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

88Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 88 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.docker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.946
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes942
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — src/dotnet/test-project/aspnetapp.csproj, src/java-8/test-project/pom.xml, src/java/test-project/pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.js, eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs
11/11Static type checking — src/typescript-node/test-project/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 34 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesyarn.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/typescript-node/test-project/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.34
toolchain_manifestssrc/dotnet/test-project/aspnetapp.csproj, src/java-8/test-project/pom.xml, src/java/test-project/pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Shell with type-check config (src/typescript-node/test-project/tsconfig.json)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageShell
largest_source_bytes979
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files0
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

2,126GitHub stars
62contributors
131commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
48open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 965 ⇿
0Stars
965Forks
100Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

02004006008001,00093992022-092024-092026-09
Major 0Minor 2Patch 93

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 05:00 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-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
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities23 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 121

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 121 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenjunit:junit4.13.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin3.8.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin—indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin3.0.0-M3indirect
npm@types/express^4.17.14indirect
npm@types/node14.14.20indirect
npm@types/node^18.7.18indirect
npm@types/yauzl2.9.1indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin^5.38.0indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/parser^5.38.0indirect
npmagent-base5.1.1indirect
npmansi-regex5.0.1indirect
npmansi-styles4.3.0indirect
npmbalanced-match1.0.2indirect
npmbase64-js1.5.1indirect
npmbl4.0.3indirect
npmbrace-expansion1.1.11indirect
npmbuffer5.7.1indirect
npmbuffer-crc320.2.13indirect
npmchownr1.1.4indirect
npmcliui7.0.4indirect
npmcolor-convert2.0.1indirect
npmcolor-name1.1.4indirect
npmconcat-map0.0.1indirect
npmcopyfiles2.4.1indirect
npmcore-util-is1.0.3indirect
npmdebug4.3.1indirect
npmdevtools-protocol0.0.818844indirect
npmemoji-regex8.0.0indirect
npmend-of-stream1.4.4indirect
npmerror-ex1.3.2indirect
npmescalade3.1.1indirect
npmeslint^8.23.1indirect
npmexpress^4.16.1indirect
npmexpress^4.18.1indirect
npmextract-zip2.0.1indirect
npmfast-safe-stringify2.1.1indirect
npmfd-slicer1.1.0indirect
npmfind-up4.1.0indirect
npmfs-constants1.0.0indirect
npmfs.realpath1.0.0indirect
npmget-caller-file2.0.5indirect
npmget-stream5.2.0indirect
npmglob7.1.6indirect
npmglob7.2.3indirect
npmgraceful-fs4.2.10indirect
npmhandlebars4.7.7indirect
npmhttps-proxy-agent4.0.0indirect
npmieee7541.2.1indirect
npminflight1.0.6indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmis-arrayish0.2.1indirect
npmis-fullwidth-code-point3.0.0indirect
npmisarray0.0.1indirect
npmisarray1.0.0indirect
npmjson-parse-better-errors1.0.2indirect
npmjsonc2.0.0indirect
npmlocate-path5.0.0indirect
npmminimatch3.1.2indirect
npmminimist1.2.6indirect
npmmkdirp0.5.5indirect
npmmkdirp0.5.6indirect
npmmkdirp1.0.4indirect
npmmkdirp-classic0.5.3indirect
npmms2.1.2indirect
npmneo-async2.6.2indirect
npmnode-fetch2.6.7indirect
npmnoms0.0.0indirect
npmonce1.4.0indirect
npmp-limit2.3.0indirect
npmp-locate4.1.0indirect
npmp-try2.2.0indirect
npmparse-json4.0.0indirect
npmpath-exists4.0.0indirect
npmpath-is-absolute1.0.1indirect
npmpend1.2.0indirect
npmpkg-dir4.2.0indirect
npmprocess-nextick-args2.0.1indirect
npmprogress2.0.3indirect
npmproxy-from-env1.1.0indirect
npmpump3.0.0indirect
npmpuppeteer5.5.0indirect
npmreadable-stream1.0.34indirect
npmreadable-stream2.3.7indirect
npmreadable-stream3.6.0indirect
npmrequire-directory2.1.1indirect
npmrimraf3.0.2indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.1.2indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.2.1indirect
npmsource-map0.6.1indirect
npmstring-width4.2.3indirect
npmstring_decoder0.10.31indirect
npmstring_decoder1.1.1indirect
npmstring_decoder1.3.0indirect
npmstrip-ansi6.0.1indirect
npmstrip-bom4.0.0indirect
npmstrip-json-comments3.1.1indirect
npmtar-fs2.1.1indirect
npmtar-stream2.2.0indirect
npmthrough2.3.8indirect
npmthrough22.0.5indirect
npmtr460.0.3indirect
npmtypescript^4.8.3indirect
npmuglify-js3.15.5indirect
npmunbzip2-stream1.4.3indirect
npmuntildify4.0.0indirect
npmutil-deprecate1.0.2indirect
npmvscode-nls-dev^4.0.1indirect
npmwebidl-conversions3.0.1indirect
npmwhatwg-url5.0.0indirect
npmwordwrap1.0.0indirect
npmwrap-ansi7.0.0indirect
npmwrappy1.0.2indirect
npmws7.4.6indirect
npmxtend4.0.2indirect
npmy18n5.0.8indirect
npmyargs16.2.0indirect
npmyargs-parser20.2.9indirect
npmyauzl2.10.0indirect
PyPImpmath1.3.0indirect
PyPIsympy1.11.1indirect
Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 111 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
handlebars4.7.7indirectcritical84.7.9
brace-expansion1.1.11indirecthigh55.0.9
extract-zip2.0.1indirecthigh2—
minimatch3.1.2indirecthigh310.2.3
tar-fs2.1.1indirecthigh33.1.1
ws7.4.6indirecthigh28.21.0

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.