Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-04 07:16 UTC

ionide / FSharp.Analyzers.SDK

Library for building custom analyzers for F# / FSAC

F#MIT★ 84 stars⑂ 28 forkssince Sep 2018View on GitHub ↗

ionide/FSharp.Analyzers.SDK holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (51/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
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.

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

Ownership

IonideOrganization
88 followers42 public repossince Jul 2015

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetFSharp.Analyzers.Build0.5.0-5296 days agof#analyzerscompilertoolingeditor

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
16.6/36Commit cadence24/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume139 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year139
human_commit_share0.84
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year24
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases56 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~52.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count56
latest_release_tagv0.38.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases52.7

Community & Adoption

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

67Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.1/60Stars84 stars
11.9/25Forks28 forks
6.2/15Watchers14 watchers
Inputs used
forks28
stars84
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
57.2/80Total downloads320,212 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesFSharp.Analyzers.Build
dependents
ecosystemsnuget
total_downloads320,212
monthly_downloads
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

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
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.311
How it's scored
27.1/42Issue resolution65% of issues closed
22.9/30PR acceptance180/236 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs180
open_issues28
closed_issues51
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d8
issue_closed_ratio0.646
closed_unmerged_prs56
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
14/25Owner reach88 followers of ionide
23.9/25Track record42 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers88
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginionide
public_repos42
account_age_days4,055
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on nuget
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 296 days ago
20/20Version history5 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesFSharp.Analyzers.Build
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish296

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests10 out of 10 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://ionide.io/FSharp.Analyzers.SDK/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://ionide.io/FSharp.Analyzers.SDK/
docs_sitehttp://ionide.io/FSharp.Analyzers.SDK/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.2
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.

51Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.4/40Legible commit history40 of 84 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.476
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapsrc/FSharp.Analyzers.Build/FSharp.Analyzers.Build.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingF# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance12 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestssrc/FSharp.Analyzers.Build/FSharp.Analyzers.Build.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.12
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeF# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageF#
largest_source_bytes1,697
source_files_sampled1
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplessamples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
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

84GitHub stars
18contributors
139commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
56releases
2bus factor
28open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 28 ⇿
0Stars
28Forks
55Releases

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.

0510152025302812019-022022-112026-08
Major 0Minor 34Patch 17

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-04 07:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 3/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 24 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 1 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 19 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetArguindirect
NuGetCliWrapindirect
NuGetFSharp.Compiler.Serviceindirect
NuGetFSharp.Coreindirect
NuGetGlobindirect
NuGetIonide.ProjInfo.ProjectSystemindirect
NuGetMcMaster.NETCore.Pluginsindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Buildindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Frameworkindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Locatorindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Tasks.Coreindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Coreindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractionsindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Consoleindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdkindirect
NuGetMSBuild.StructuredLoggerindirect
NuGetNUnitindirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapterindirect
NuGetSarif.Sdkindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 statisticsNuGet.