Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 09:59 UTC

DataDog / dd-trace-rb

Datadog's client library for Ruby

RubyCustom license★ 412 stars⑂ 406 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#datadog#tracing#apm#distributed-tracing#ruby#hacktoberfest#debugging#profiling

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 (66/100). 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 86 is calibrated to 98 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Datadog, Inc.Organization
3,221 followers1,194 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
RubyGemsdatadog2.38.0-450 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 — 3,314 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year3,314
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~16.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.38.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases16.2

Community & Adoption

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

81Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

79Good
How it's scored
42.4/60Stars — 412 stars
21.7/25Forks — 406 forks
15/15Watchers — 583 watchers
Inputs used
forks406
stars412
watchers583
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

71Good
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

98Exceptional
How it's scored
78.1/80Total downloads — 32,764,010 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdatadog
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads32,764,010
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?

92Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

85Excellent
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 21% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.206

Issue & PR responsiveness

87Excellent
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance — 4,529/5,215 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs4,529
open_issues128
closed_issues607
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.826
closed_unmerged_prs686
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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach — 3,221 followers of DataDog
25/25Track record — 1,194 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,221
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginDataDog
public_repos1,194
account_age_days5,813
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 45 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdatadog
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 26 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?

66Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

66Good
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 13 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

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 — .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
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_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_bytes9,780
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

79Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — mise.toml
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, Nix
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_filesmise.toml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 10/2,122 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes124,815
source_files_sampled2,122
oversized_source_files10

Machine-readable interfaces

50Moderate
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 — not applicable to this kind of software
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_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

412GitHub stars
100contributors
3,314commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
4bus factor
128open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-16 09:58 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 13 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
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 DataDog/dd-trace-rb. Read them side by side →

98DataDog/dd-trace-goDatadog Go Library including APM tracing, profiling, and security monitoring.Exceptional97DataDog/dd-trace-pyDatadog Python APM ClientExceptional100DataDog/dd-trace-jsDatadog APM client for Node.jsExceptional96jaegertracing/jaeger-uiWeb UI for JaegerExceptional98open-telemetry/opentelemetry-ruby-contribContrib Packages for the OpenTelemetry Ruby API and SDK implementation.Exceptional99open-telemetry/opentelemetry-jsOpenTelemetry JavaScript ClientExceptional

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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