Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 12:58 UTC

frasermolyneux / portal-repository

XtremeIdiots Repository API and data platform for player and server data backed by SQL, App Service, and API Management.

C#GPL-3.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Dec 2022View on GitHub ↗
#app-insights#app-service#azure#github-actions#key-vault#sql-database#terraform#aad-groups#api-management

frasermolyneux/portal-repository holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

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

Ownership

Fraser MolyneuxPersonal account
16 followers41 public repossince Nov 2017@Microsoft

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

89Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

88Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
23.5/36Commit cadence — 34/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 429 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year429
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year34

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv4.2.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2.1

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

36Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

49Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

29At Risk
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
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.503

Issue & PR responsiveness

68Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
17.2/30PR acceptance — 479/836 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs479
open_issues0
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs357
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

53Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
8.8/25Owner reach — 16 followers of frasermolyneux
23.8/25Track record — 41 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers16
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginfrasermolyneux
public_repos41
account_age_days3,153
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

50Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 12 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsapp-insights, app-service, azure, github-actions, key-vault, sql-database, terraform, aad-groups, api-management
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

55Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

55Moderate
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — 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 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/auditing-balance.instructions.md, .github/instructions/datalib-regeneration.instructions.md, AGENTS.md
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.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/auditing-balance.instructions.md, .github/instructions/datalib-regeneration.instructions.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes10,563
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

30At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 2/554 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes104,960
source_files_sampled554
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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 — demos
Inputs used
example_dirsdemos
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

0GitHub stars
4contributors
429commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 12:57 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 41

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 41 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAsp.Versioning.Mvc8.1.1indirect
NuGetAsp.Versioning.Mvc.ApiExplorer8.1.1indirect
NuGetAzure.Data.Tables12.11.0indirect
NuGetAzure.Identity1.21.0indirect
NuGetAzure.Security.KeyVault.Secrets4.11.0indirect
NuGetAzure.Storage.Blobs12.29.1indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector10.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.AspNetCore2.23.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.Profiler.AspNetCore3.0.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights.WindowsServer.TelemetryChannel2.23.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.NewtonsoftJson9.0.17indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Testing9.0.17indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi9.0.17indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Azure.AppConfiguration.AspNetCore8.5.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Data.SqlClient7.0.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Data.SqlClient.Extensions.Azure7.0.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore9.0.17indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory9.0.17indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer9.0.17indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Caching.Abstractions10.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration10.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection10.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions10.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging10.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions10.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Options10.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Options.ConfigurationExtensions10.0.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Identity.Web4.13.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.7.0indirect
NuGetMoq4.20.72indirect
NuGetMX.Api.Abstractions2.3.67indirect
NuGetMX.Api.Client2.3.67indirect
NuGetMX.Api.Web.Extensions2.3.67indirect
NuGetMX.CodDemoReader1.0.42indirect
NuGetMX.GeoLocation.Abstractions.V11.2.89indirect
NuGetMX.Observability.ApplicationInsights.AspNetCore1.1.24indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.4indirect
NuGetRestSharp114.0.0indirect
NuGetScalar.AspNetCore2.16.11indirect
NuGetxunit2.9.3indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.1.5indirect
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 frasermolyneux/portal-repository. Read them side by side →

98databricks/terraform-provider-databricksDatabricks Terraform ProviderExceptional98cloud-custodian/cloud-custodianRules engine for cloud security, cost optimization, and governance, DSL in yaml for policies to query, filter, and take actions on resourcesExceptional98bridgecrewio/checkovPrevent cloud misconfigurations and find vulnerabilities during build-time in infrastructure as code, container images and open source packages with Checkov by Bridgecrew.Exceptional96github-aws-runners/terraform-aws-github-runnerTerraform module for scalable GitHub action runners on AWSExceptional93cisco-open/forgeForgeMT is a multi-tenant platform for self-hosted GitHub Actions runners on AWS. It gives platform teams an IaC-driven way to operate ephemeral EC2 runners and ARC/Kubernetes runner scale sets for many tenant repositories.Exceptional92Azure/setup-helmGithub Action for installing HelmExcellent

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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