Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 02:08 UTC

funfair-tech / funfair-server-code-analysis

Additional code analysis rules that all FunFair C# code needs to abide by

C#No license detected★ 2 stars⑂ 1 forksince Dec 2019View on GitHub ↗
#roslyn-analyzers#code-analysis#code-analyzer#code-quality

funfair-tech/funfair-server-code-analysis holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (17/100). 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

FunFair Technologies Europe LimitedOrganization
1 follower25 public repossince Jun 2017

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?

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,394 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 22 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,394
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv7.2.10.2209
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases7
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?

17Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

3Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars2
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

32At Risk
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
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?

46Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

29At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.981

Issue & PR responsiveness

44Weak
How it's scored
26.7/42Issue resolution — 64% of issues closed
11.7/30PR acceptance — 174/448 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs174
open_issues8
closed_issues14
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.636
closed_unmerged_prs274
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

68Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of funfair-tech
22.3/25Track record — 25 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginfunfair-tech
public_repos25
account_age_days3,319
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

66Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 15 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.funfair.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsroslyn-analyzers, code-analysis, code-analyzer, code-quality
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.funfair.io/
docs_sitehttps://www.funfair.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

64Moderate
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 — 1 out of 1 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 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 22 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

37Weak · 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)

41Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.yml
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/88 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes22,511
source_files_sampled88
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
11contributors
1,394commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
8open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 02:08 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-Tests1 out of 1 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 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 22 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 100

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 100 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAsyncFixer2.1.0indirect
NuGetAutoBogus2.13.1indirect
NuGetAutoBogus.NSubstitute2.13.1indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet0.15.8indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet.Annotations0.15.8indirect
NuGetBogus35.6.5indirect
NuGetCastle.Core5.2.1indirect
NuGetCommandLineParser2.9.1indirect
NuGetCredfeto.Enumeration.Source.Generation1.2.150.2166indirect
NuGetCredfeto.Enumeration.Source.Generation.Attributes1.2.150.2166indirect
NuGetCSharpIsNullAnalyzer0.1.593indirect
NuGetDisableDateTimeNow1.0.5883.39470indirect
NuGetFluentValidation12.1.1indirect
NuGetFunFair.Test.Common6.3.5.2471indirect
NuGetFunFair.Test.Infrastructure6.3.5.2471indirect
NuGetFunFair.Test.Source.Generator6.3.5.2471indirect
NuGetGee.External.Capstone2.3.0indirect
NuGetGitHubActionsTestLogger3.0.4indirect
NuGetHumanizer.Core2.14.1indirect
NuGetIced1.21.0indirect
NuGetMeziantou.Analyzer3.0.123indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights2.23.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers5.3.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Common5.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp5.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces5.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Workspaces.Common5.6.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeCoverage18.8.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Diagnostics.NETCore.Client0.2.510501indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Diagnostics.Runtime3.1.512801indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Diagnostics.Tracing.TraceEvent3.1.21indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.DiaSymReader2.2.9indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.DotNet.PlatformAbstractions3.1.6indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyModel10.0.8indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Options6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Primitives6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.TimeProvider.Testing10.7.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.ILLink.Tasks10.0.10indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.ILLink.Tasks9.0.18indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.8.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NETCore.Platforms1.1.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage18.9.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.Telemetry2.0.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.TrxReport.Abstractions2.0.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Platform2.3.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Platform.MSBuild2.0.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModel18.8.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.TestHost18.8.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Threading.Analyzers18.7.23indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry5.0.0indirect
NuGetNETStandard.Library2.0.3indirect
NuGetNonBlocking2.1.2indirect
NuGetNSubstitute5.3.0indirect
NuGetNSubstitute.Analyzers.CSharp1.0.17indirect
NuGetNullable.Extended.Analyzer1.15.6581indirect
NuGetPerfolizer0.6.1indirect
NuGetPhilips.CodeAnalysis.DuplicateCodeAnalyzer2.0.0indirect
NuGetPhilips.CodeAnalysis.MaintainabilityAnalyzers2.0.0indirect
NuGetPragmastat3.2.4indirect
NuGetRoslynator.Analyzers4.15.0indirect
NuGetSecurityCodeScan.VS20195.6.7indirect
NuGetSmartAnalyzers.CSharpExtensions.Annotations4.2.11indirect
NuGetSonarAnalyzer.CSharp10.29.0.143774indirect
NuGetSourceLink.Create.CommandLine2.8.3indirect
NuGetSystem.Buffers4.6.1indirect
NuGetSystem.CodeDom9.0.5indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Immutable10.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Composition10.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Composition.AttributedModel10.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Composition.Convention10.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Composition.Hosting10.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Composition.Runtime10.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Composition.TypedParts10.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Data.DataSetExtensions4.5.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.EventLog6.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.IO.Pipelines10.0.8indirect
NuGetSystem.Management9.0.5indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory4.6.3indirect
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Vectors4.6.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Metadata10.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.TypeExtensions4.7.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe6.1.2indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Encoding.CodePages8.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Encodings.Web10.0.8indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json10.0.8indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions4.6.3indirect
NuGetToStringWithoutOverrideAnalyzer0.6.0indirect
NuGetxunit.analyzers1.27.0indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.assert3.2.2indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.common3.2.2indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.core.mtp-v23.2.2indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.extensibility.core3.2.2indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.mtp-v23.2.2indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.runner.common3.2.2indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.runner.inproc.console3.2.2indirect
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 funfair-tech/funfair-server-code-analysis. Read them side by side →

73ShieldCI/analyzers-coreShieldCI Analyzers Core - Shared foundation for building static analysis tools. Includes abstract analyzer classes, result formatters, file parsers, and utilities. Used by both shieldci/laravel and shieldci/laravel-pro packages.Good96pmd/pmdAn extensible multilanguage static code analyzer.Exceptional92meziantou/Meziantou.AnalyzerA powerful C# Roslyn analyzer that uses static analysis to detect bugs, surface security issues, and enforce best practices—helping developers and AI write more reliable code.Excellent89Cranot/roam-codeLocal codebase intelligence CLI + MCP server for AI coding agents: SQLite code graph, 28 languages, 287 commands, 246 MCP tools, change-safety gates, audit evidence, zero API keys.Excellent86HexmosTech/LiveReviewBlast-Radius Aware AI Code Review for Business-Critical SystemsExcellent84optave/ops-codegraph-toolCode intelligence CLI — function-level dependency graph across 34 languages, 34-tool MCP server for AI agents, complexity metrics, architecture boundary enforcement, CI quality gates, git diff impact with co-change analysis, hybrid semantic search. Fully local, zero API keys required.Excellent

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.