Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-08 23:28 UTC

DataDog / datadog-api-client-rust

Rust client for the Datadog API

RustApache-2.0★ 24 stars⑂ 4 forkssince Jul 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

DataDog/datadog-api-client-rust holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Security (56/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Datadog, Inc.Organization
3,253 followers1,199 public repossince Aug 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iodatadog-api-client0.34.0186,232381 day agoclientapidatadogopenapiapi-bindingsconfig
PyPIgeneratorpoints to another repo — not scored0.1-alpha-15226 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 778 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year778
human_commit_share0.02
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 37 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~23.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count37
latest_release_tag0.34.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases23.4
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
22.1/60Stars — 24 stars
4/25Forks — 4 forks
14/15Watchers — 328 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars24
watchers328
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
70.3/80Monthly downloads — 186,232 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdatadog-api-client
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads1,811,907
monthly_downloads186,232
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?

79Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.308
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
23.4/30PR acceptance — 1,435/1,838 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs1,435
open_issues2
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.667
closed_unmerged_prs403
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 3,253 followers of DataDog
25/25Track record — 1,199 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,253
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginDataDog
public_repos1,199
account_age_days5,837

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 38 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdatadog-api-client
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 12 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://crates.io/crates/datadog-api-client
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://crates.io/crates/datadog-api-client
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.7/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: click 8.2.1 (high 7.2), pytest 7.4.4 (moderate 6.8)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
29.6/40No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 198 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories7
affected_packages3
assessed_packages19
unassessed_packages38
affected_by_severityhigh 2, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 19 resolved dependencies against OSV. 38 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, patches/rvcr/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, patches/rvcr/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 60/10,821 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes2,558,810
source_files_sampled10,821
oversized_source_files60
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — .generator/schemas/v1/openapi.yaml, .generator/schemas/v2/openapi.yaml
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files.generator/schemas/v1/openapi.yaml, .generator/schemas/v2/openapi.yaml

Key facts

24GitHub stars
16contributors
778commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
37releases
2bus factor
2open issues
crates.io, 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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
21Releases

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.

1223344412025-022025-092026-03
Major 0Minor 19Patch 2

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-08 23:28 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 24
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIclick^8.1.4.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAML^6.0.1.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPIjsonref^1.1.0.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2^3.1.2.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPIpytest^7.4.0.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPIpytest-bdd^6.1.1.generator/pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil^2.8.2.generator/pyproject.toml
crates.ioasync-stream0.3.6Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4.44Cargo.toml
crates.iogetrandom0.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioflate21.1.9Cargo.toml
crates.ioform-data-builder1.0.1Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-core0.3.32Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy_static1.5.0Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.29Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest0.13.2Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest-middleware0.5.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest-retry0.9.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.228Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0.149Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_with3.18.0Cargo.toml
crates.iourl2.5.8Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid1.23.0Cargo.toml
crates.iozstd0.13.3Cargo.toml
All dependencies 57

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 24 direct and 33 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioasync-streamdirect
crates.iochronodirect
crates.ioflate2direct
crates.ioform-data-builderdirect
crates.iofutures-coredirect
crates.iogetrandomdirect
crates.iolazy_staticdirect
crates.iologdirect
crates.ioreqwestdirect
crates.ioreqwest-middlewaredirect
crates.ioreqwest-retrydirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.ioserde_jsondirect
crates.ioserde_withdirect
crates.iourldirect
crates.iouuiddirect
crates.iozstddirect
PyPIclick8.2.1direct
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPIjsonref1.1.0direct
PyPIpytest7.4.4direct
PyPIpytest-bdd6.1.1direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.2direct
crates.ioanyhowindirect
crates.ioasync-traitindirect
crates.iobase64indirect
crates.iobytesindirect
crates.ioconvert_caseindirect
crates.iocucumberindirect
crates.ioenv_loggerindirect
crates.iofuturesindirect
crates.iofutures-utilindirect
crates.iohttpindirect
crates.iominijinjaindirect
crates.ioregexindirect
crates.iorustc_versionindirect
crates.iosha256indirect
crates.iotokioindirect
crates.iotracingindirect
crates.iotracing-subscriberindirect
crates.iotracing-testindirect
crates.iourlencodingindirect
crates.iovcr-cassetteindirect
crates.iozipindirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPImako1.3.10indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.2indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIparse1.20.2indirect
PyPIparse-type0.6.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPItomli2.2.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 19 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct. 38 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click8.2.1directhigh18.3.3
mako1.3.10indirecthigh41.3.12
pytest7.4.4directmoderate29.0.3

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io, PyPI.