Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-23 01:46 UTC

sokolaidev / maf-extensions

Extensions for Microsoft Agent Framework

PythonMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗

sokolaidev/maf-extensions holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
overall / 100
Good

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.

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

Ownership

SOKOLAIOrganization
1 follower1 public reposince Feb 2026

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume402 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year402
human_commit_share0.66
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~0 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagmaf-sandbox-wslc-v0.10.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges9
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
57.3/80Monthly downloads19,723 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmaf-sandbox, maf-sandbox-acas, maf-sandbox-wslc, maf-sandbox-bicep, maf-sandbox-docker, maf-sandbox-codeact
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads19,723
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
31.8/42Issue resolution76% of issues closed
29.6/30PR acceptance415/421 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs415
open_issues44
closed_issues136
prs_merged_7d36
prs_decided_7d36
prs_merged_30d36
prs_decided_30d36
issue_closed_ratio0.756
closed_unmerged_prs6
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach1 followers of sokolaidev
3.3/25Track record1 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginsokolaidev
public_repos1
account_age_days198

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable6 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history28 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmaf-sandbox, maf-sandbox-acas, maf-sandbox-wslc, maf-sandbox-bicep, maf-sandbox-docker, maf-sandbox-codeact
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configpackages/maf-sandbox-acas/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox-bicep/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox-codeact/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox-docker/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox-wslc/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.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_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.sokol.ai
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://www.sokol.ai
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
0/7.5Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages88
unassessed_packages5
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 88 resolved dependencies against OSV. 5 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.

81Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history66 of 66 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes12,783
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configpackages/maf-sandbox-acas/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox-bicep/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox-codeact/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox-docker/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox-wslc/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), packages/maf-sandbox/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checkingpackages/maf-sandbox-acas/src/maf_sandbox_acas/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-bicep/src/maf_sandbox_bicep/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-codeact/src/maf_sandbox_codeact/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-docker/src/maf_sandbox_docker/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-wslc/src/maf_sandbox_wslc/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox/src/maf_sandbox/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice49 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspackages/maf-sandbox-acas/src/maf_sandbox_acas/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-bicep/src/maf_sandbox_bicep/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-codeact/src/maf_sandbox_codeact/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-docker/src/maf_sandbox_docker/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-wslc/src/maf_sandbox_wslc/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox/src/maf_sandbox/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.49
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (packages/maf-sandbox-acas/src/maf_sandbox_acas/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-bicep/src/maf_sandbox_bicep/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-codeact/src/maf_sandbox_codeact/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-docker/src/maf_sandbox_docker/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox-wslc/src/maf_sandbox_wslc/py.typed, packages/maf-sandbox/src/maf_sandbox/py.typed)
51.1/55Manageable file sizes12/168 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes220,856
source_files_sampled168
oversized_source_files12
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

0GitHub stars
1contributors
402commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
44open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • deps.dev does not index pypi:maf-sandbox@0.21.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-23 01:46 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPImaf-sandbox>=0.21.0,<0.23packages/maf-sandbox-acas/pyproject.toml
PyPIazure-identity>=1.25.1,<2packages/maf-sandbox-acas/pyproject.toml
PyPIazure-containerapps-sandbox>=0.1.0b3,<0.2packages/maf-sandbox-acas/pyproject.toml
PyPImaf-sandbox>=0.21.0,<0.23packages/maf-sandbox-bicep/pyproject.toml
PyPIagent-framework-core>=1.13.0,<2packages/maf-sandbox-bicep/pyproject.toml
PyPImaf-sandbox>=0.21.0,<0.23packages/maf-sandbox-codeact/pyproject.toml
PyPIagent-framework-core>=1.13.0,<2packages/maf-sandbox-codeact/pyproject.toml
PyPImaf-sandbox>=0.21.0,<0.23packages/maf-sandbox-docker/pyproject.toml
PyPImaf-sandbox>=0.21.0,<0.23packages/maf-sandbox-wslc/pyproject.toml
PyPIagent-framework-core>=1.13.0,<2packages/maf-sandbox/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 93

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 85 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIagent-framework-coredirect
PyPIagent-framework-core1.13.0direct
PyPIazure-containerapps-sandboxdirect
PyPIazure-containerapps-sandbox0.1.0b4direct
PyPIazure-identitydirect
PyPIazure-identity1.25.3direct
PyPImaf-sandboxdirect
PyPImaf-sandbox0.21.0direct
PyPIagent-framework-openai1.13.0indirect
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.7.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.14.3indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.8.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIazure-core1.41.0indirect
PyPIazure-mgmt-core1.6.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIdistro1.9.0indirect
PyPIdocutils0.23indirect
PyPIexecnet2.1.2indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.3indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIid1.6.1indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.19indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.6.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIjiter0.16.0indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPImaf-sandbox-acas0.12.2indirect
PyPImaf-sandbox-bicep0.9.3indirect
PyPImaf-sandbox-codeact0.7.3indirect
PyPImaf-sandbox-docker0.7.3indirect
PyPImaf-sandbox-wslc0.10.2indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools11.1.0indirect
PyPImsal1.37.0indirect
PyPImsal-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPImsgspec0.21.1indirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPInh30.3.6indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIopenai2.54.0indirect
PyPIopentelemetry-api1.44.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpastel0.2.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.3indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpoethepoet0.48.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.2indirect
PyPIpropcache0.5.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.4indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.13.0indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist3.8.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.5.2indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer45.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.15.22indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIsniffio1.3.1indirect
PyPItqdm4.70.0indirect
PyPItwine6.2.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuv-buildindirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.4indirect
PyPIyarl1.24.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 88 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 5 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 statisticsPyPI.