Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 12:27 UTC

microsoft / vstest

Visual Studio Test Platform is the runner and engine that powers test explorer and vstest.console.

C#MIT★ 965 stars⑂ 354 forkssince Jul 2016View on GitHub ↗

microsoft/vstest holds a health index of 96 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (97/100) and lowest on Security (64/100). It was last updated today. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

96
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.

96
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 84 is calibrated to 96 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?

97Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
31.2/36Commit cadence45/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume434 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year434
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year45

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~31.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv18.8.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases31.7
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?

89Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
48.4/60Stars965 stars
21.2/25Forks354 forks
10.2/15Watchers70 watchers
Inputs used
forks354
stars965
watchers70
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

100Exceptional
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
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
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 25% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.253
How it's scored
41.5/42Issue resolution99% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance3,682/4,188 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 9/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs3,682
open_issues30
closed_issues2,209
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.987
closed_unmerged_prs506
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?

75Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows17 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests23 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsvisual-studio, testing-tools, testing, test-runner, unit-testing, dotnet
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?

64Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
1.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests23 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 9/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 18 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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
4.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.4
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
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/acceptance-tests.instructions.md, .github/instructions/blame-datacollector.instructions.md, .github/instructions/communicationutilities.instructions.md, .github/instructions/crossplatengine.instructions.md, .github/instructions/eng.instructions.md, .github/instructions/objectmodel.instructions.md, .github/instructions/testhost.instructions.md, .github/instructions/vstest-console.instructions.md, AGENTS.md, eng/common/AGENTS.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_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/acceptance-tests.instructions.md, .github/instructions/blame-datacollector.instructions.md, .github/instructions/communicationutilities.instructions.md, .github/instructions/crossplatengine.instructions.md, .github/instructions/eng.instructions.md, .github/instructions/objectmodel.instructions.md, .github/instructions/testhost.instructions.md, .github/instructions/vstest-console.instructions.md, AGENTS.md, eng/common/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,026
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
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
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.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes17/1,472 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes1,599,364
source_files_sampled1,472
oversized_source_files17
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplessamples
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

965GitHub stars
100contributors
434commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
4bus factor
30open 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 12:26 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
2Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests23 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 9/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
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 30 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
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 77

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 77 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAwesomeAssertionsindirect
NuGetcoverlet.collectorindirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector1.2.0indirect
NuGetDrop.Appindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Frameworkindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Build.Utilities.Coreindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysisindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharpindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeCoverageindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeCoverage.Coreindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeCoverage.IOindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Diagnostics.NETCore.Clientindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Diagnostics.Tracing.TraceEvent1.0.41indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.DotNet.IBCMergeindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyModelindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.FileSystemGlobbingindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Internal.CodeCoverageindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Internal.Diaindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Internal.Intellitraceindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Internal.Intellitrace.Extensionsindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Internal.TestPlatform.Extensionsindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.IO.Redist6.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.ManifestTool.CrossPlatformindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdkindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.12.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.QualityTools.Testing.Fakes.TestRunnerHarnessindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Platformindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Testing.Platform.MSBuildindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatformindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.CLIindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.Filter.Sourceindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModelindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModel18.0.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.TestPlatform.TestAsset.NativeCPP2.0.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.ArchitectureTools.PEReaderindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Diagnostics.Utilitiesindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Enterprise.AspNetHelperindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Interopindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.QualityToolsindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Telemetryindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudio.Utilities.Internalindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Coreindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VisualStudioEng.MicroBuild.Plugins.SwixBuildindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.VSSDK.BuildToolsindirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registryindirect
NuGetMoqindirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapterindirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter1.0.0-previewindirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter3.3.1indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter3.7.1indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter3.9.2indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFrameworkindirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework1.0.0-previewindirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework3.3.1indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework3.7.1indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework3.9.2indirect
NuGetNETStandard.Library2.0.3indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Jsonindirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3indirect
NuGetNuGet.Versioning6.1.0indirect
NuGetNUnitindirect
NuGetNUnit.ConsoleRunnerindirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapterindirect
NuGetProcdump0.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Immutableindirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSourceindirect
NuGetSystem.Diagnostics.EventLog5.0.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Reflection.Metadataindirect
NuGetSystem.Runtime.InteropServices.RuntimeInformation4.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates4.1.2indirect
NuGetSystem.Security.Principal.Windowsindirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json9.0.1indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.RegularExpressions4.3.1indirect
NuGetSystem.ValueTuple4.5.0indirect
NuGetxunitindirect
NuGetxunit.runner.consoleindirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudioindirect
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.