Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 20:36 UTC

unoplatform / uno.extensions

Libraries to ease common developer tasks associated with building multi-platform mobile, desktop and web applications using Uno Platform or WinAppSDK.

C#Custom license★ 100 stars⑂ 59 forkssince May 2021View on GitHub ↗
#uno#uno-platform#webassembly#wasm#uwp#mono#xamarin#csharp#first-timers-friendly#hacktoberfest

unoplatform/uno.extensions holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Security (64/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

90
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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Uno PlatformOrganization
693 followers100 public repossince Jun 2019

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?

94Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

95Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
31.2/36Commit cadence — 45/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 395 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year395
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year45

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 20 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 58 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~62.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tag7.1.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release58
mean_days_between_releases62.8
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?

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

54Moderate
How it's scored
32.4/60Stars — 100 stars
14.7/25Forks — 59 forks
6.4/15Watchers — 15 watchers
Inputs used
forks59
stars100
watchers15
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
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?

72Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 44 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled44
top_contributor_share0.463

Issue & PR responsiveness

62Moderate
How it's scored
26.7/42Issue resolution — 64% of issues closed
17.9/30PR acceptance — 1,232/2,061 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs1,232
open_issues292
closed_issues509
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.635
closed_unmerged_prs829
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

94Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
20.4/25Owner reach — 693 followers of unoplatform
25/25Track record — 100 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers693
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginunoplatform
public_repos100
account_age_days2,578
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

Engineering practices

74Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://platform.uno/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsuno, uno-platform, webassembly, wasm, uwp, mono, xamarin, csharp, first-timers-friendly, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://platform.uno/
docs_sitehttps://platform.uno/
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

Security posture

64Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 21 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
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
2/5Security-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_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.

70Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.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_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes37,192
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

43Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C# (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
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)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes — 3/1,628 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC#
largest_source_bytes94,070
source_files_sampled1,628
oversized_source_files3

Machine-readable interfaces

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

100GitHub stars
44contributors
395commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
20releases
2bus factor
292open 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 · 2026-07-17 20:35 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-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 6/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 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
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 95

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 95 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetAspNet.Security.OAuth.Apple—indirect
NuGetCommunityToolkit.Mvvm—indirect
NuGetcoverlet.collector—indirect
NuGetDuende.IdentityModel.OidcClient—indirect
NuGetFluentAssertions—indirect
NuGetFluentValidation—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.Facebook—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.Google—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.MicrosoftAccount—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Http—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Localization.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Graphics.Win2D—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Identity.Client—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Identity.Client.Broker—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Identity.Client.Extensions.Msal—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.IdentityModel.Tokens—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Kiota.Abstractions—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Kiota.Http.HttpClientLibrary—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Kiota.Serialization.Form—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Kiota.Serialization.Json—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Kiota.Serialization.Multipart—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Kiota.Serialization.Text—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Maui.Controls—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Maui.Controls8.0.100indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Maui.Controls.Compatibility—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Maui.Controls.Compatibility8.0.100indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.Maui.Graphics—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk—indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NETFramework.ReferenceAssemblies—indirect
NuGetMoq—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetMSTest.TestFramework—indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json—indirect
NuGetNUnit—indirect
NuGetNUnit3TestAdapter—indirect
NuGetNunitXml.TestLogger—indirect
NuGetRefit—indirect
NuGetRefit.HttpClientFactory—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Extensions.Hosting—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Settings.Configuration—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Console—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Debug—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.File—indirect
NuGetSerilog.Sinks.Xamarin—indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp—indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux—indirect
NuGetSkiaSharp.Skottie—indirect
NuGetSwashbuckle.AspNetCore—indirect
NuGetSyncfusion.Maui.Charts22.2.9indirect
NuGetSyncfusion.Maui.Core22.2.9indirect
NuGetSyncfusion.Maui.DataGrid22.2.9indirect
NuGetSystem.Collections.Immutable—indirect
NuGetSystem.ComponentModel.Annotations—indirect
NuGetSystem.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt—indirect
NuGetSystem.Linq.Async—indirect
NuGetSystem.Net.Http.WinHttpHandler—indirect
NuGetSystem.Text.Json—indirect
NuGetSystem.Threading.Tasks.Extensions—indirect
NuGetUno.Core.Extensions—indirect
NuGetUno.Core.Extensions.Collections—indirect
NuGetUno.Core.Extensions.Logging—indirect
NuGetUno.Core.Extensions.Logging.Singleton—indirect
NuGetUno.Extensions.Logging.OSLog—indirect
NuGetUno.Extensions.Logging.WebAssembly.Console—indirect
NuGetUno.Extensions.Markup.Generators—indirect
NuGetUno.Extensions.Markup.WinUI—indirect
NuGetUno.Roslyn—indirect
NuGetUno.Toolkit—indirect
NuGetUno.UI.Adapter.Microsoft.Extensions.Logging—indirect
NuGetUno.UI.RuntimeTests.Engine—indirect
NuGetUno.UITest—indirect
NuGetUno.UITest.Helpers—indirect
NuGetUno.UITest.Selenium—indirect
NuGetUno.UITest.Xamarin—indirect
NuGetUno.WinUI—indirect
NuGetUno.WinUI.DevServer—indirect
NuGetUno.WinUI.Markup—indirect
NuGetUno.WinUI.MSAL—indirect
NuGetXamarin.AndroidX.Collection—indirect
NuGetXamarin.AndroidX.Collection.Jvm—indirect
NuGetXamarin.AndroidX.Collection.Ktx—indirect
NuGetXamarin.AndroidX.Navigation.Common—indirect
NuGetXamarin.AndroidX.Navigation.Fragment—indirect
NuGetXamarin.AndroidX.Navigation.Runtime—indirect
NuGetXamarin.AndroidX.Navigation.UI—indirect
NuGetXamarin.UITest—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 unoplatform/uno.extensions. Read them side by side →

98unoplatform/unoOpen-source platform for building cross-platform native Mobile, Web, Desktop, and Embedded apps from a single C#/XAML codebase. Work from any IDE/CLI with Hot Reload, Visual Designer, MCPs, and Skills built for modern .NET workflows. 200M+ NuGet downloads.Exceptional100AvaloniaUI/AvaloniaDevelop Desktop, Embedded, Mobile and WebAssembly apps with C# and XAML. The future of .NET UIExceptional98boa-dev/boaBoa is an embeddable Javascript engine written in Rust.Exceptional98microsoft/kiotaOpenAPI based HTTP Client code generatorExceptional98pyodide/pyodidePyodide is a Python distribution for the browser and Node.js based on WebAssemblyExceptional98umbraco/Umbraco-CMSUmbraco is a free and open source .NET content management system helping you deliver delightful digital experiences.Exceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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