Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 16:31 UTC

fsprojects / fantomas

FSharp source code formatter

F#Custom license★ 832 stars⑂ 205 forkssince Feb 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

fsprojects/fantomas holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (63/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

91
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

332 followers124 public repossince Nov 2013

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?

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 520 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year520
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year33
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~18.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv8.0.0-alpha-015
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases18.7

Community & Adoption

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

80Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47.4/60Stars — 832 stars
19.2/25Forks — 205 forks
7.6/15Watchers — 24 watchers
Inputs used
forks205
stars832
watchers24
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

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
8.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 64% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 26 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.642
How it's scored
40/42Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance — 1,700/1,842 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1,700
open_issues75
closed_issues1,481
prs_merged_7d15
prs_decided_7d15
prs_merged_30d16
prs_decided_30d16
issue_closed_ratio0.952
closed_unmerged_prs142
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
18.1/25Owner reach — 332 followers of fsprojects
25/25Track record — 124 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers332
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginfsprojects
public_repos124
account_age_days4,659

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://fsprojects.github.io/fantomas
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsformatter, ast, fsharp
has_wikino
homepagehttps://fsprojects.github.io/fantomas
docs_sitehttps://fsprojects.github.io/fantomas
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 26 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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_packages6
unassessed_packages26
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 6 resolved dependencies against OSV. 26 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.

80Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, analyzers/AGENTS.md, analyzers/CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://fsprojects.github.io/fantomas/llms.txt)
32.5/40Legible commit history — 61 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://fsprojects.github.io/fantomas/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.61
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, analyzers/AGENTS.md, analyzers/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes13,708
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — F# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
8/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackages.lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.04
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — F# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageF#
largest_source_bytes8,161
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

832GitHub stars
98contributors
520commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
75open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 205 ⇿
0Stars
205Forks
97Releases

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.

0408012016020019452013-042019-112026-06
Major 3Minor 5Patch 48

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 16:31 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
10CI-Tests6 out of 6 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 26 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 32

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 32 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetaltcover—indirect
NuGetArgu—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetCliWrap—indirect
NuGetEditorConfig—indirect
NuGetFsCheck—indirect
NuGetFSharp.Analyzers.SDK0.37.2indirect
NuGetFSharp.Analyzers.SDK.Testing0.37.2indirect
NuGetFSharp.Core—indirect
NuGetFSharp.Core10.1.201indirect
NuGetFsLexYacc—indirect
NuGetFsUnit—indirect
NuGetIgnore—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Framework—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.4.0indirect
NuGetNUnit—indirect
NuGetNUnit4.5.1indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.2.0indirect
NuGetSemanticVersioning—indirect
NuGetSerilog—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Console—indirect
NuGetSpectre.Console—indirect
NuGetStreamJsonRpc—indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Immutable—indirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource—indirect
NuGetSystem.IO.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetSystem.IO.Abstractions.TestingHelpers—indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory—indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 6 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 26 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.