Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 12:50 UTC

microsoft / playwright-dotnet

.NET version of the Playwright testing and automation library.

C# · JavaScriptMIT★ 2,974 stars⑂ 301 forkssince Jan 2020View on GitHub ↗

microsoft/playwright-dotnet holds a health index of 93 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (86/100) and lowest on Security (64/100). It was last updated 20 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

93
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

93
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 79 is calibrated to 93 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MicrosoftOrganization
125,262 followers8,194 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?

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 20 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence21/52 weeks with commits
15.8/18Commit volume57 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained20 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year57
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push20
active_weeks_last_year21
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases88 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 22 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~46.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count88
latest_release_tagv1.61.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release22
mean_days_between_releases46.1
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?

86Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
56.3/60Stars2,974 stars
20.6/25Forks301 forks
9.6/15Watchers55 watchers
Inputs used
forks301
stars2,974
watchers55
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_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?

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth49 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 29 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled49
top_contributor_share0.369
How it's scored
40.9/42Issue resolution97% of issues closed
26.8/30PR acceptance1,437/1,607 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 27/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs1,437
open_issues42
closed_issues1,514
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.973
closed_unmerged_prs170
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach125,262 followers of microsoft
25/25Track record8,194 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers125,262
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginmicrosoft
public_repos8,194
account_age_days4,600
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://playwright.dev/dotnet/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicschrome, chromium, firefox, webkit, csharp, playwright
has_wikino
homepagehttps://playwright.dev/dotnet/
docs_sitehttps://playwright.dev/dotnet/
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
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 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
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 27/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 29 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
7.5/7.5Maintained20 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3/7.5Vulnerabilities6 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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,599
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc
11/11Static type checkingsrc/Playwright.TestingHarnessTest/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/Playwright.TestingHarnessTest/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
53.9/55Manageable file sizes17/834 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes940,093
source_files_sampled834
oversized_source_files17

Key facts

2,974GitHub stars
49contributors
57commits, last 12 months
20days since last push
88releases
2bus factor
42open issues
package 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 · 2026-07-16 12:50 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
9Code-ReviewFound 27/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 29 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4Vulnerabilities6 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 42

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@playwright/test1.61.1-beta-1782139630000indirect
npm@types/node22.12.0indirect
npmfast-xml-parser4.5.0indirect
npmfsevents2.3.2indirect
npmplaywright1.61.1-beta-1782139630000indirect
npmplaywright-core1.61.1-beta-1782139630000indirect
npmstrnum1.0.5indirect
npmundici-types6.20.0indirect
NuGetCommandLineParser2.9.1indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector3.1.2indirect
NuGetcoverlet.msbuild3.1.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions6.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Primitives6.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.13.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.8.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Playwright.NUnitindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Playwright.TestAdapterindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.SourceLink.GitHub8.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModel17.3.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Core1.0.0indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter2.2.10indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter2.2.7indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter4.0.0-preview.25372.6indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework2.2.10indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework2.2.7indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework4.0.0-preview.25372.6indirect
NuGetNUnit3.13.2indirect
NuGetNUnit3.14.0indirect
NuGetNUnit4.3.2indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter4.0.0indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter4.5.0indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter5.0.0indirect
NuGetSixLabors.ImageSharp2.1.11indirect
NuGetSystem.ComponentModel.Annotations5.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json6.0.10indirect
NuGetxunit2.9.2indirect
NuGetxunit.extensibility.core2.8.0indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.8.2indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio3.0.2indirect
NuGetxunit.v33.0.0indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.extensibility.core1.0.1indirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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