Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 01:11 UTC

microsoft / artifacts-credprovider

The Azure Artifacts Credential Provider enables dotnet, NuGet.exe, and MSBuild to interactively acquire credentials for Azure Artifacts feeds.

C#MIT★ 951 stars⑂ 728 forkssince Jun 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

microsoft/artifacts-credprovider holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (94/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (56/100). It was last updated 19 days ago. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

92
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.

92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MicrosoftOrganization · verified domain
131,977 followers8,378 public repossince Dec 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
NuGetMicrosoft.Artifacts.CredentialProvider.NuGet.Tool2.0.5-519 days agomicrosoftvisualstudioteamservicesvstsvsovisualstudiopackagemanagementnuget

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 19 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
14.8/18Commit volume — 44 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year44
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push19
active_weeks_last_year23

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 57 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 20 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~35.7 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count57
latest_release_tagv2.0.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release20
mean_days_between_releases35.7

Community & Adoption

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

83Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
48.3/60Stars — 951 stars
23.8/25Forks — 728 forks
8.8/15Watchers — 40 watchers
Inputs used
forks728
stars951
watchers40
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesdev.azure.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

94Exceptional · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 17% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 51 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled51
top_contributor_share0.171
How it's scored
40.7/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
24.8/30PR acceptance — 318/384 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_prs318
open_issues9
closed_issues295
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.97
closed_unmerged_prs66
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
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 131,977 followers of microsoft
25/25Track record — 8,378 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers131,977
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginmicrosoft
public_repos8,378
account_age_days4,695

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on nuget
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 19 days ago
20/20Version history — 5 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesMicrosoft.Artifacts.CredentialProvider.NuGet.Tool
ecosystemsnuget
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish19

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
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
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_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=623217
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttp://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=623217
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

81Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
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
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packaging — no data
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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_packages3
unassessed_packages15
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 3 resolved dependencies against OSV. 15 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://code.visualstudio.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://code.visualstudio.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — CredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests.csproj, CredentialProvider.Microsoft/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.csproj, src/Authentication.Tests/Microsoft.Artifacts.Authentication.Tests.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests.csproj, CredentialProvider.Microsoft/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.csproj, src/Authentication.Tests/Microsoft.Artifacts.Authentication.Tests.csproj, src/Authentication/Microsoft.Artifacts.Authentication.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/72 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes23,577
source_files_sampled72
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — samples
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

951GitHub stars
51contributors
44commits, last 12 months
19days since last push
57releases
4bus factor
9open issues
NuGetpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 728 ⇿
0Stars
728Forks
52Releases

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.

012525037550062575071792018-092022-102026-10
Major 2Minor 3Patch 35

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.7 / 10
7.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 01:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
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
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetFluentAssertions—CredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests.csproj
NuGetMoq—CredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests.csproj
NuGetMSTest—CredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.Tests.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging—CredentialProvider.Microsoft/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Core—CredentialProvider.Microsoft/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.csproj
NuGetNuGet.Protocol—CredentialProvider.Microsoft/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.csproj
NuGetPowerArgs—CredentialProvider.Microsoft/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.csproj
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—CredentialProvider.Microsoft/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.csproj
NuGetSystem.Text.Json—CredentialProvider.Microsoft/CredentialProvider.Microsoft.csproj
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetFluentAssertions—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Core—direct
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Core1.0.0direct
NuGetMoq—direct
NuGetMSTest—direct
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—direct
NuGetNuGet.Protocol—direct
NuGetPowerArgs—direct
NuGetSystem.Text.Json—direct
NuGetMicroBuild.Core.Sentinel1.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Console—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Debug—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Identity.Client—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Identity.Client.Broker—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Identity.Client.Extensions.Msal—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Plugins.SwixBuild1.1.224indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 3 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 15 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 — NuGet.