Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 21:16 UTC

microsoft / cswinrt

C# language projection for the Windows Runtime

C# · C++MIT★ 657 stars⑂ 127 forkssince Oct 2019View on GitHub ↗
#windows#csharp#desktop#winui3#dotnet5#winrt

microsoft/cswinrt holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (48/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

84
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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MicrosoftOrganization
125,333 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?

73Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

73Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume — 32 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year20

Release discipline

74Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 52 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 115 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~67.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count52
latest_release_tag3.0.0-preview.260319.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release115
mean_days_between_releases67.7

Community & Adoption

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

78Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

71Good
How it's scored
45.7/60Stars — 657 stars
17.5/25Forks — 127 forks
7.9/15Watchers — 27 watchers
Inputs used
forks127
stars657
watchers27
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

86Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

75Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 45 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled45
top_contributor_share0.308

Issue & PR responsiveness

86Excellent
How it's scored
31.9/42Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
27.6/30PR acceptance — 1,306/1,419 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_prs1,306
open_issues226
closed_issues714
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.76
closed_unmerged_prs113
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 — 125,333 followers of microsoft
25/25Track record — 8,203 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers125,333
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?

58Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswindows, csharp, desktop, winui3, dotnet5, winrt
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

59Moderate
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
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 15 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate5.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. 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.

48Weak · 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)

46Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated 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 — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
52.5/55Manageable file sizes — 17/369 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes457,226
source_files_sampled369
oversized_source_files17

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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

657GitHub stars
45contributors
32commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
52releases
3bus factor
226open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 21:16 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained6 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 54

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 54 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetBasic.Reference.Assemblies.Net80—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet—indirect
NuGetBenchmarkDotNet.Diagnostics.Windows—indirect
NuGetCommandLineParser—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector—indirect
NuGetMarkdownLog.NS20—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Common—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Analyzer.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFix.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeStyle—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.DotNet.ApiCompat—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.googletest.v140.windesktop.msvcstl.static.rt-dyn1.8.1.6indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.TestHost—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VCRTForwarders.140—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VCRTForwarders.1401.1.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Web.WebView2—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Web.WebView21.0.3179.45indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.CppWinRT2.0.250303.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.CsWin32—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.CsWinRT—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.ImplementationLibrary1.0.250325.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.MidlRT2.0.200924.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.SDK.BuildTools10.0.22000.194indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.SDK.BuildTools10.0.26100.4654indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.SDK.BuildTools.MSIX1.7.20250829.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.SDK.Contracts—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.WinMD1.0.250131.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WindowsAppSDK.Base1.8.250831001indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WindowsAppSDK.Foundation1.8.251104000indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WindowsAppSDK.InteractiveExperiences1.8.251104001indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WindowsAppSDK.WinUI—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WindowsAppSDK.WinUI1.8.251105000indirect
NuGetMono.Cecil—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
NuGetNUnit—indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetPerfolizer—indirect
NuGetSimpleMathComponent—indirect
NuGetSystem.CommandLine—indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory—indirect
NuGetSystem.Numerics.Vectors—indirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.Extensions—indirect
NuGetxunit—indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.console—indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio—indirect
NuGetXunitXml.TestLogger—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/cswinrt. Read them side by side →

98microsoft/microsoft-ui-xamlWinUI: a modern UI framework with a rich set of controls and styles to build dynamic and high-performing Windows applications.Exceptional97microsoft/WindowsAppSDKThe Windows App SDK empowers all Windows desktop apps with modern Windows UI, APIs, and platform features, including back-compat support, shipped via NuGet.Exceptional100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional89CommunityToolkit/WindowsCollection of controls, helpers and extension for WinUI 2, WinUI 3, and Uno Platform developers. Simplifies and demonstrates common developer tasks building experiences for Windows with .NET.Excellent98unoplatform/unoOpen-source platform for building cross-platform native Mobile, Web, Desktop, and Embedded apps from a single C#/XAML codebase. Work from any IDE/CLI with Hot Reload, Visual Designer, MCPs, and Skills built for modern .NET workflows. 200M+ NuGet downloads.Exceptional98dotnet/maui.NET MAUI is the .NET Multi-platform App UI, a framework for building native device applications spanning mobile, tablet, and desktop.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.