Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 09:59 UTC

tryAGI / OpenAI

C# SDK based on official OpenAI OpenAPI specification

C#MIT★ 35 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Jun 2023View on GitHub ↗

tryAGI/OpenAI holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (55/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

tryAGIOrganization
195 followers251 public repossince Mar 2023

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?

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
33.2/36Commit cadence48/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume301 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year301
human_commit_share0.87
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year48
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases19 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~74.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tagv4.2.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases74.4
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?

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.8/60Stars35 stars
5.8/25Forks6 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars35
watchers2
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_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 99% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.993
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance355/384 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 19/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs355
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d10
prs_decided_30d10
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs29
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
16.5/25Owner reach195 followers of tryAGI
19.9/25Track record251 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers195
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logintryAGI
public_repos251
account_age_days1,260

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://tryagi.github.io/OpenAI/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscsharp, dotnet, openai, openapi, sdk, ai, autosdk, chat-completion, embeddings, llm
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://tryagi.github.io/OpenAI/
docs_sitehttps://tryagi.github.io/OpenAI/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests24 out of 24 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
5.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 19/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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_packages26
unassessed_packages0
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 26 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

78Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history83 of 87 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.954
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,259
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapsrc/libs/FreeLLM/FreeLLM.csproj, src/libs/tryAGI.OpenAI.CLI/tryAGI.OpenAI.CLI.csproj, src/libs/tryAGI.OpenAI/tryAGI.OpenAI.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance13 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestssrc/libs/FreeLLM/FreeLLM.csproj, src/libs/tryAGI.OpenAI.CLI/tryAGI.OpenAI.CLI.csproj, src/libs/tryAGI.OpenAI/tryAGI.OpenAI.csproj, src/tests/CSharpToJsonSchema.SnapshotTests/CSharpToJsonSchema.SnapshotTests.csproj, src/tests/CSharpToJsonSchema.UnitTests/CSharpToJsonSchema.UnitTests.csproj, src/tests/FreeLLM.IntegrationTests/FreeLLM.IntegrationTests.csproj, src/tests/OpenAI.IntegrationTests/OpenAI.IntegrationTests.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0.13
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC# (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes38/11,253 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes2,392,171
source_files_sampled11,253
oversized_source_files38
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)src/libs/tryAGI.OpenAI/openapi.yaml
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filessrc/libs/tryAGI.OpenAI/openapi.yaml
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

35GitHub stars
3contributors
301commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
19releases
1bus factor
0open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks
14Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

123456612024-012025-012026-02
Major 1Minor 5Patch 8

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-29 09:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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-Tests24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 19/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 26

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAwesomeAssertions9.4.0indirect
NuGetAwesomeAssertions9.6.0indirect
NuGetCSharpToJsonSchema3.10.5indirect
NuGetGitHubActionsTestLogger2.4.1indirect
NuGetGitHubActionsTestLogger3.0.5indirect
NuGetGoogle_Gemini0.11.2indirect
NuGetH.Generators.Tests.Extensions1.22.0indirect
NuGetH.Resources.Generator1.6.1indirect
NuGetH.Resources.Generator1.8.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.SourceGenerators.Testing.MSTest1.1.2indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces4.11.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AI10.9.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.AI.Abstractions10.9.0indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions10.0.11indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk17.11.1indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk18.9.0indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter3.6.1indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter4.3.3indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework3.6.1indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework4.3.3indirect
NuGetNUnit4.6.1indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter6.3.0indirect
NuGetSystem.CommandLine2.0.11indirect
NuGetTiktoken3.1.5indirect
NuGetVerify.MSTest27.0.1indirect
NuGetVerify.SourceGenerators2.5.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 26 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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 statistics.