Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 02:41 UTC

DataDog / dd-trace-rb

Datadog's client library for Ruby

RubyCustom license★ 416 stars⑂ 416 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolNetwork servicehow this is determined

DataDog/dd-trace-rb holds a health index of 98 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Security (73/100). It was last updated today. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

98
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

98
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 87 is calibrated to 98 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Datadog, Inc.Organization · verified domain
3,293 followers1,202 public repossince Aug 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsdatadog2.42.0-498 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 4,013 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year4,013
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~12.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.42.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases12.2

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.5/60Stars — 416 stars
21.8/25Forks — 416 forks
15/15Watchers — 581 watchers
Inputs used
forks416
stars416
watchers581
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
78.7/80Total downloads — 37,571,526 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdatadog
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads37,571,526
monthly_downloads—
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?

91Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 20% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 93 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled93
top_contributor_share0.204
How it's scored
34.8/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
26/30PR acceptance — 4,715/5,437 decided PRs merged
5.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs4,715
open_issues127
closed_issues616
prs_merged_7d12
prs_decided_7d17
prs_merged_30d44
prs_decided_30d52
issue_closed_ratio0.829
closed_unmerged_prs722
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 3,293 followers of DataDog
25/25Track record — 1,202 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,293
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginDataDog
public_repos1,202
account_age_days5,868

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 8 days ago
20/20Version history — 49 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdatadog
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 28 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.datadoghq.com/tracing/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdatadog, tracing, apm, distributed-tracing, ruby, hacktoberfest, debugging, profiling
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.datadoghq.com/tracing/
docs_sitehttps://docs.datadoghq.com/tracing/
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-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — 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 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
5.2/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.6

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories22
affected_packages3
assessed_packages8
unassessed_packages80
affected_by_severityhigh 2, moderate 1
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 8 resolved dependencies against OSV. 80 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.

76Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .cursor/rules/code-style.mdc, .cursor/rules/testing.mdc, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, lib/datadog/open_feature/AGENTS.md, lib/datadog/open_feature/CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.datadoghq.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 74 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.datadoghq.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.787
agent_instruction_files.cursor/rules/code-style.mdc, .cursor/rules/testing.mdc, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, lib/datadog/open_feature/AGENTS.md, lib/datadog/open_feature/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes14,439
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — .claude/hooks/Makefile, mise.toml
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, Nix
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files.claude/hooks/Makefile, mise.toml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 10/2,181 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes127,270
source_files_sampled2,181
oversized_source_files10
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — spec/datadog/core/ddsketch_pprof/ddsketch.proto, spec/datadog/profiling/pprof/pprof.proto, spec/datadog/tracing/contrib/grpc/support/proto/test_service.proto
0/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesspec/datadog/core/ddsketch_pprof/ddsketch.proto, spec/datadog/profiling/pprof/pprof.proto, spec/datadog/tracing/contrib/grpc/support/proto/test_service.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

416GitHub stars
93contributors
4,013commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
4bus factor
127open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 15 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 416 ⇿
0Stars
416Forks
100Releases

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.

010020030040050040962016-122021-102026-09
Major 2Minor 71Patch 21

Each point covers 9 days.

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 · 2026-09-09 02:40 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 88

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 88 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactive_model_serializers—indirect
RubyGemsactive_model_serializers0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord-import—indirect
RubyGemsannotate—indirect
RubyGemsawesome_print—indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk—indirect
RubyGemsbcrypt-ruby—indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal—indirect
RubyGemsbootsnap—indirect
RubyGemsbullet—indirect
RubyGemscgi—indirect
RubyGemsci_reporter_rspec—indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.4indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool—indirect
RubyGemsdatabase_cleaner—indirect
RubyGemsdatadog-ruby_core_source—indirect
RubyGemsdevise—indirect
RubyGemsdogstatsd-ruby—indirect
RubyGemsdotenv—indirect
RubyGemsdry-configurable—indirect
RubyGemsdry-container—indirect
RubyGemsfactory_girl_rails—indirect
RubyGemsfactory_girl_rails4.5.0indirect
RubyGemsfaker—indirect
RubyGemsffi—indirect
RubyGemsgeoip—indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-protobuf—indirect
RubyGemshanami—indirect
RubyGemshanami-model—indirect
RubyGemshanami-webconsole—indirect
RubyGemshawk-auth—indirect
RubyGemshiredis—indirect
RubyGemshttparty—indirect
RubyGemsipaddress—indirect
RubyGemslibdatadog—indirect
RubyGemslibddwaf—indirect
RubyGemslisten—indirect
RubyGemslogger—indirect
RubyGemsmock_redis—indirect
RubyGemsmock_redis0.19.0indirect
RubyGemsmsgpack—indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json—indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m—indirect
RubyGemsmysql2—indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap—indirect
RubyGemsnet-imap0.2.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop—indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp—indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsoj—indirect
RubyGemsoj3.3indirect
RubyGemsopentelemetry-sdk—indirect
RubyGemsostruct—indirect
RubyGemsparallel_tests—indirect
RubyGemspassenger—indirect
RubyGemspry-byebug—indirect
RubyGemspsych—indirect
RubyGemspuma—indirect
RubyGemsrabl—indirect
RubyGemsrack—indirect
RubyGemsrack-cors—indirect
RubyGemsrackup—indirect
RubyGemsrails—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsredis—indirect
RubyGemsresque—indirect
RubyGemsresque-scheduler—indirect
RubyGemsrollbar—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-collection_matchers—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-rails—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-wait—indirect
RubyGemsshotgun—indirect
RubyGemsshoulda-matchers—indirect
RubyGemsshoulda-matchers4.0.1indirect
RubyGemssidekiq—indirect
RubyGemssinatra—indirect
RubyGemssinatra-router—indirect
RubyGemssprockets-rails—indirect
RubyGemssqlite3—indirect
RubyGemstimecop—indirect
RubyGemstzinfo-data—indirect
RubyGemsunicorn—indirect
RubyGemsvalidates_timeliness—indirect
RubyGemsversionist—indirect
RubyGemswarden—indirect
RubyGemswebmock—indirect
RubyGemswebrick—indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 8 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 80 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
concurrent-ruby1.3.4indirecthigh31.3.7
oj3.3indirecthigh113.17.3
net-imap0.2.2indirectmoderate80.6.4.1

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 — RubyGems.