Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 21:58 UTC

meziantou / WPFFontAwesome

Use FontAwesome in WPF application

C#MIT★ 24 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Jan 2015archivedView on GitHub ↗
#dotnet#wpf#fontawesome

meziantou/WPFFontAwesome holds a health index of 11 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (50/100) and lowest on Vitality (1/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

11
overall / 100
Critical

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.

11
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 33 is calibrated to 27 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Gérald BarréPersonal account
865 followers78 public repossince Dec 2010

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?

1Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 724 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push724
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

37Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

26At Risk
How it's scored
22.1/60Stars — 24 stars
4/25Forks — 4 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars24
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
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?

50Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 69% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.686

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
16/30PR acceptance — 39/73 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs39
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs34
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

70Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
21.1/25Owner reach — 865 followers of meziantou
25/25Track record — 78 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers865
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmeziantou
public_repos78
account_age_days5,705
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotnet, wpf, fontawesome
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

38Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

38Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 14 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no 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
0/7.5Maintained — project is archived
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — 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_aggregate3.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

23At Risk · 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)

13Critical
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

95Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
50.4/55Manageable file sizes — 1/12 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes1,119,567
source_files_sampled12
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

24GitHub stars
3contributors
0commits, last 12 months
724days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
0open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 21:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMeziantou.Framework.CodeDom4.0.5Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Generator/Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Generator.csproj
NuGetMeziantou.Framework.Versioning1.3.2Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Generator/Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Generator.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry5.0.0Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Generator/Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Generator.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.1Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Generator/Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Generator.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk16.11.0Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Tests/Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Tests.csproj
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter2.2.6Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Tests/Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Tests.csproj
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework2.2.6Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Tests/Meziantou.WpfFontAwesome.Tests.csproj
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMeziantou.Framework.CodeDom4.0.5direct
NuGetMeziantou.Framework.Versioning1.3.2direct
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk16.11.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry5.0.0direct
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter2.2.6direct
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework2.2.6direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.1direct
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 meziantou/WPFFontAwesome. Read them side by side →

100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional90lepoco/wpfuiWPF UI provides the Fluent experience in your known and loved WPF framework. Intuitive design, themes, navigation and new immersive controls. All natively and effortlessly.Excellent97dotnet/wpfWPF is a .NET Core UI framework for building Windows desktop applications.Exceptional100dotnet/aspnetcoreASP.NET Core is a cross-platform .NET framework for building modern cloud-based web applications on Windows, Mac, or Linux.Exceptional99App-vNext/PollyPolly is a .NET resilience and transient-fault-handling library that allows developers to express policies such as Retry, Circuit Breaker, Timeout, Bulkhead Isolation, and Fallback in a fluent and thread-safe manner. From version 6.0.1, Polly targets .NET Standard 1.1 and 2.0+.Exceptional98open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet-contribThis repository contains set of components extending functionality of the OpenTelemetry .NET SDK. Instrumentation libraries, exporters, and other components can find their home here.Exceptional

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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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