Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 12:31 UTC

microsoft / testfx

This repository holds the source code of Microsoft.Testing.Platform (MTP), a lightweight alternative to VSTest, as well as MSTest adapter and framework.

C#MIT★ 1,031 stars⑂ 305 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗
#dotnet#microsoft#mstest#test#test-framework#tdd#mstestv2#unittest#test-runner#testing-tools#visual-studio#mtp#testing#microsoft-testing-platform#mstestv3#mstestv4

microsoft/testfx holds a health index of 97 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (74/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

97
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.

97
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 85 is calibrated to 97 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?

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
34.6/36Commit cadence — 50/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 3,172 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year3,172
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year50

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 98 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~31 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count98
latest_release_tagv4.3.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases31
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?

85Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

79Good
How it's scored
48.9/60Stars — 1,031 stars
20.7/25Forks — 305 forks
9.6/15Watchers — 55 watchers
Inputs used
forks305
stars1,031
watchers55
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?

89Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

75Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.309

Issue & PR responsiveness

95Exceptional
How it's scored
40.9/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
27/30PR acceptance — 6,317/7,011 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_prs6,317
open_issues76
closed_issues2,729
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.973
closed_unmerged_prs694
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 — 125,262 followers of microsoft
25/25Track record — 8,194 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?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 45 workflow(s)
24/24Tests 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_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 16 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdotnet, microsoft, mstest, test, test-framework, tdd, mstestv2, unittest, test-runner, testing-tools, visual-studio, mtp, testing, microsoft-testing-platform, mstestv3, mstestv4
has_wikino
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?

76Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

76Good
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 18 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
4.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
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 — 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_aggregate7.6
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.

78Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/copilot-curate.instructions.md, AGENTS.md, eng/common/AGENTS.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/copilot-curate.instructions.md, AGENTS.md, eng/common/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes16,016
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

63Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C# (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 11/3,293 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes259,137
source_files_sampled3,293
oversized_source_files11

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
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

1,031GitHub stars
100contributors
3,172commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
98releases
3bus factor
76open issues
—package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.6 / 10
7.6aggregate

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 12:31 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 18 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 82

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 82 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAspire.Hosting.Testing—indirect
NuGetAwesomeAssertions—indirect
NuGetAzure.AI.OpenAI—indirect
NuGetAzure.Core—indirect
NuGetCombinatorial.MSTest—indirect
NuGetDrop.App—indirect
NuGetFSharp.Core—indirect
NuGetMessagePack—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ApplicationInsights—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Framework—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis—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.CodeRefactoring.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.Analyzer.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.CodeFix.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.CodeRefactoring.Testing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeCoverage.MSBuild—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Diagnostics.NETCore.Client—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.DotNet.Build.Tasks.Templating—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.DotNet.IBCMerge—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AI—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AI.OpenAI—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.FileSystemGlobbing—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Console—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ManifestTool.CrossPlatform—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Playwright.MSTest.v4—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.PackagedApp—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.TrxReport—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Extensions.TrxReport.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Platform—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Platform.MSBuild—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.Filter.Source—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModel—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.TestHost—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.TranslationLayer—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Azure.Containers.Tools.Targets1.19.6indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Core—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Plugins.SwixBuild—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.SDK.BuildTools10.0.26100.1742indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.SDK.BuildTools10.0.26100.7175indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WindowsAppSDK—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WindowsAppSDK1.6.241114003indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.WindowsAppSDK1.8.251106002indirect
NuGetMoq—indirect
NuGetMSBuild.StructuredLogger—indirect
NuGetMSTest—indirect
NuGetMSTest.Analyzers—indirect
NuGetMSTest.Engine—indirect
NuGetMSTest.SourceGeneration—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework—indirect
NuGetNerdbank.MessagePack—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
NuGetNUnit—indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry—indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Exporter.Console—indirect
NuGetOpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol—indirect
NuGetPolly—indirect
NuGetPolly.Contrib.WaitAndRetry—indirect
NuGetStreamJsonRpc—indirect
NuGetStrongNamer—indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Immutable—indirect
NuGetSystem.CommandLine—indirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource—indirect
NuGetSystem.Management—indirect
NuGetSystem.Memory—indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Metadata—indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json—indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions—indirect
NuGetxunit.v3.mtp-v2—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/testfx. Read them side by side →

96mochajs/mocha☕️ Classic, reliable, trusted test framework for Node.js and the browserExceptional96microsoft/vstestVisual Studio Test Platform is the runner and engine that powers test explorer and vstest.console.Exceptional94nunit/nunitNUnit FrameworkExceptional99microsoft/playwrightPlaywright is a framework for Web Testing and Automation. It allows testing Chromium, Firefox and WebKit with a single API. Exceptional98pytest-dev/pytestThe pytest framework makes it easy to write small tests, yet scales to support complex functional testingExceptional95bats-core/bats-coreBash Automated Testing SystemExceptional

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.