Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 16:06 UTC

DataDog / datadog-api-client-go

Golang client for the Datadog API

GoApache-2.0★ 163 stars⑂ 68 forkssince Jun 2019View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

DataDog/datadog-api-client-go holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Security (58/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Datadog, Inc.Organization · verified domain

3,289 followers1,201 public repossince Aug 2010

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2	v2.65.0	-	70	3 days ago
PyPI	generatorpoints to another repo — not scored	0.1-alpha	5	1	5253 days ago

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

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36	Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 834 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	834
human_commit_share	0.03
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	51

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~20 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v2.65.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	3
mean_days_between_releases	20

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?

71Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

66Good

How it's scored

35.8/60	Stars — 163 stars
15.2/25	Forks — 68 forks
15/15	Watchers — 514 watchers

Inputs used

forks	68
stars	163
watchers	514
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

77Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

86Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

77Good

How it's scored

36/54	Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 24% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 79 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	3
contributors_sampled	79
top_contributor_share	0.239

Issue & PR responsiveness

73Good

How it's scored

31.5/42	Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
22.9/30	PR acceptance — 3,328/4,363 decided PRs merged
3.2/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	3,328
open_issues	21
closed_issues	63
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	3
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	4
issue_closed_ratio	0.75
closed_unmerged_prs	1,035
first_time_authors_30d	2
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	4

Ownership & stewardship

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
25/25	Owner reach — 3,289 followers of DataDog
25/25	Track record — 1,201 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	3,289
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	DataDog
public_repos	1,201
account_age_days	5,864

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20	Version history — 70 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 13 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	datadog, datadog-api, golang, openapi
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2
docs_site	https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

60Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
4/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
3.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 21 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

49Weak

How it's scored

10.4/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: click 8.2.1 (high 7.2), golang.org/x/oauth2 v0.10.0 (high 7.5), pytest 7.4.4 (moderate 6.8)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
26/40	No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 556 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	80
affected_packages	10
assessed_packages	67
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 5, moderate 4, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 67 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.

68Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.datadoghq.com/llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.datadoghq.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

75Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — go.mod, tests/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum, poetry.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod, tests/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.9/55	Manageable file sizes — 30/11,392 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	653,774
source_files_sampled	11,392
oversized_source_files	30

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — .generator/schemas/v1/openapi.yaml, .generator/schemas/v2/openapi.yaml
20/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	.generator/schemas/v1/openapi.yaml, .generator/schemas/v2/openapi.yaml
interfaces_expected_of	—

Key facts

163GitHub stars

79contributors

834commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

3bus factor

21open issues

Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
pypi package 'generator' points at a different repository (UNKNOWN); excluded from ecosystem scoring
deps.dev does not index pypi:generator@0.1-alpha; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 68 ⇿

0Stars

68Forks

97Releases

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.

Major 2Minor 77Patch 6

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10

6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 16:06 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
4	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
8	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
7	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	21 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 11

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	click	`^8.1.4`	.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPI	PyYAML	`^6.0`	.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPI	jsonref	`^1.1.0`	.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPI	jinja2	`^3.1.6`	.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPI	pytest	`^7.4.0`	.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPI	pytest-bdd	`^6.1.1`	.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-dateutil	`^2.8.2`	.generator/pyproject.toml
Go	github.com/DataDog/zstd	`v1.5.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/goccy/go-json	`v0.10.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.5.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/oauth2	`v0.10.0`	go.mod

All dependencies 67

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 56 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/datadog/zstd	`v1.5.2`	direct
Go	github.com/goccy/go-json	`v0.10.2`	direct
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.5.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/oauth2	`v0.10.0`	direct
PyPI	click	`8.2.1`	direct
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	direct
PyPI	jsonref	`1.1.0`	direct
PyPI	pytest	`7.4.4`	direct
PyPI	pytest-bdd	`6.1.1`	direct
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.2`	direct
Go	github.com/cucumber/gherkin-go/v13	`v13.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/cucumber/messages-go/v12	`v12.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/datadog/datadog-api-client-go	`1.0.0-beta.22`	indirect
Go	github.com/datadog/datadog-go	`v4.8.2+incompatible`	indirect
Go	github.com/datadog/dd-sdk-go-testing	`v0.0.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/datadog/sketches-go	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/dnaeon/go-vcr	`1.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-bdd/gobdd	`1.1.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-bdd/gobdd	`v1.1.4-0.20211209204431-ca566a78d075`	indirect
Go	github.com/gofrs/uuid	`v4.4.0+incompatible`	indirect
Go	github.com/gogo/protobuf	`v1.3.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/golang/mock	`v1.6.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/golang/protobuf	`v1.5.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/go-cmp	`0.4.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/go-cmp	`v0.5.9`	indirect
Go	github.com/h2non/parth	`v0.0.0-20190131123155-b4df798d6542`	indirect
Go	github.com/jonboulle/clockwork	`v0.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/mcuadros/go-lookup	`0.0.0-20200831155250-80f87a4fa5ee`	indirect
Go	github.com/microsoft/go-winio	`0.4.16`	indirect
Go	github.com/microsoft/go-winio	`v0.5.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/mitchellh/go-homedir	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/opentracing/opentracing-go	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/philhofer/fwd	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/pkg/errors	`v0.9.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/stretchr/objx	`v0.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.7.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/tinylib/msgp	`v1.1.6`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`0.0.0-20210405180319-a5a99cb37ef4`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.17.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.36.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`0.0.0-20210510120138-977fb7262007`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.30.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/time	`v0.0.0-20210723032227-1f47c861a9ac`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/xerrors	`v0.0.0-20200804184101-5ec99f83aff1`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/appengine	`v1.6.7`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.31.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/datadog/dd-trace-go.v1	`1.30.0-rc.1.0.20210420124628-f63633f38e8f`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/datadog/dd-trace-go.v1	`v1.33.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/dnaeon/go-vcr.v3	`v3.1.2`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/h2non/gock.v1	`v1.0.15`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	indirect
Go	gotest.tools	`v2.2.0+incompatible`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mako	`1.3.10`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`25.0`	indirect
PyPI	parse	`1.20.2`	indirect
PyPI	parse-type	`0.6.6`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 10

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 67 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 10 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
click	`8.2.1`	direct	high	1	`8.3.3`
golang.org/x/oauth2	`v0.10.0`	direct	high	2	`0.27.0`
golang.org/x/net	`0.0.0-20210405180319-a5a99cb37ef4`	indirect	high	34	`12.0.2`
google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.31.0`	indirect	high	2	`1.33.0`
mako	`1.3.10`	indirect	high	4	`1.3.12`
pytest	`7.4.4`	direct	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
golang.org/x/net	`v0.17.0`	indirect	moderate	18	`1.27.0-rc.3`
golang.org/x/net	`v0.36.0`	indirect	moderate	13	`1.27.0-rc.3`
golang.org/x/sys	`0.0.0-20210510120138-977fb7262007`	indirect	moderate	3	`1.18.2`
golang.org/x/sys	`v0.30.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.44.0`

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.

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 — Go, PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records