Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 22:09 UTC

microsoft / SqlScriptDOM

ScriptDOM/SqlDOM is a .NET library for parsing T-SQL statements and interacting with its abstract syntax tree

GAP · C#MIT★ 263 stars⑂ 41 forkssince Sep 2022View on GitHub ↗
#sql#dotnet

microsoft/SqlScriptDOM holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (83/100) and lowest on Vitality (33/100). It was last updated 31 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

69
overall / 100
Good

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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MicrosoftOrganization
125,336 followers8,203 public repossince Dec 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?

33At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

54Moderate
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 31 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume — 32 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push31
active_weeks_last_year21

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?

75Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

60Moderate
How it's scored
39.2/60Stars — 263 stars
13.4/25Forks — 41 forks
7.6/15Watchers — 24 watchers
Inputs used
forks41
stars263
watchers24
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

83Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

74Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.37

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
23.4/42Issue resolution — 56% of issues closed
27.9/30PR acceptance — 91/98 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs91
open_issues51
closed_issues64
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.557
closed_unmerged_prs7
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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach — 125,336 followers of microsoft
25/25Track record — 8,203 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers125,336
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginmicrosoft
public_repos8,203
account_age_days4,603
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssql, dotnet
has_wikino
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?

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 — 30 out of 30 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
6/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/adding_new_parser.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/bug_fixing.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/database_option.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/debugging_workflow.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/function.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/grammar_validation.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/grammer.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/new_data_types.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/new_index_types.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/parser.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/testing.guidelines.instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.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/adding_new_parser.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/bug_fixing.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/database_option.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/debugging_workflow.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/function.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/grammar_validation.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/grammer.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/new_data_types.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/new_index_types.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/parser.guidelines.instructions.md, .github/instructions/testing.guidelines.instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes31,296
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

27At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
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_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
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

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — GAP without a type-check config
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 5/1,311 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGAP
largest_source_bytes528,951
source_files_sampled1,311
oversized_source_files5

Machine-readable interfaces

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

263GitHub stars
18contributors
32commits, last 12 months
31days since last push
0releases
3bus factor
51open issues
NuGetpackage 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 · 2026-07-18 22:08 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-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
6SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
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 microsoft/SqlScriptDOM. Read them side by side →

95bitwarden/serverBitwarden infrastructure/backend (API, database, Docker, etc).Exceptional92snowflakedb/snowflake-connector-netSnowflake Connector for .NETExcellent90fluentmigrator/fluentmigratorFluent migrations framework for .NETExcellent100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional100dotnet/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+.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.