Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 02:14 UTC

dotnet / roslyn-analyzers

No license detected★ 1,671 stars⑂ 478 forkssince Jun 2015View on GitHub ↗

dotnet/roslyn-analyzers holds a health index of 44 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (66/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (1/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

44
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.

44
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 46 is calibrated to 44 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

.NET PlatformOrganization · verified domain
23,348 followers278 public repossince Oct 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?

47Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
4.3/18Commit volume — 2 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year2
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 51 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 637 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~159.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count51
latest_release_tag9.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release637
mean_days_between_releases159.7
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?

66Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
52.3/60Stars — 1,671 stars
22.3/25Forks — 478 forks
10.2/15Watchers — 68 watchers
Inputs used
forks478
stars1,671
watchers68
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.5
How it's scored
29.7/42Issue resolution — 71% of issues closed
26.3/30PR acceptance — 3,494/3,984 decided PRs merged
10.4/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 4/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs3,494
open_issues1,053
closed_issues2,542
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.707
closed_unmerged_prs490
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d4
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 23,348 followers of dotnet
25/25Track record — 278 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers23,348
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logindotnet
public_repos278
account_age_days4,353

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

21At Risk · 19% of overall
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 1 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

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages28
affected_by_severitynone
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 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 28 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.

1Critical · 4% of overall
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.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
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_languageno
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.

Key facts

1,671GitHub stars
2contributors
2commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
51releases
1bus factor
1,053open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 478 ⇿
0Stars
478Forks
51Releases

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.

0100200300400500474122015-072021-022026-08
Major 6Minor 4Patch 25

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 02:14 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 1/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
1Maintained0 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 29

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 29 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet.Diagnostics.Windows—indirect
NuGetDrop.App—indirect
NuGetHumanizer.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Common—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFix.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeRefactoring.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Test.Resources.Proprietary—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.CodeFix.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.CodeRefactoring.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.Workspaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Workspaces.Common—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Diagnostics.Tracing.TraceEvent—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.DotNet.IBCMerge—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Guardian.Cli0.199.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ManifestTool.CrossPlatform—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NETCore.App.Ref—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Composition—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Plugins.SwixBuild—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
NuGetPerfolizer—indirect
NuGetSystem.CommandLine—indirect
NuGetSystem.ComponentModel.Composition—indirect
NuGetxunit.assert—indirect
NuGetXunit.Combinatorial—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 28 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.