# DataDog/integrations-core — health index 97/100 (Exceptional)

> Inspection of the public repository DataDog/integrations-core by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 97 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/DataDog/integrations-core
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/DataDog/integrations-core
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/DataDog/integrations-core/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/d/DataDog/integrations-core.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-13
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 100/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 88/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 91/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 89/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 46/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 87/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 85 is calibrated to 97 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Core integrations of the Datadog Agent |
| Classification | cli, plugin, network-service, library |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | BSD-3-Clause |
| Stars | 1,129 |
| Forks | 1,551 |
| Created | 2015-12-01 |
| Last push | 2026-08-13 |
| Latest release | ddev-v17.0.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 2,133 |
| Bus factor | 11 |
| Topics | datadog-agent, datadog, dd, integrations |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | datadog-zk | 0.0.1 | — |
| pypi | datadog-iis | 0.0.1 | — |
| pypi | datadog-n8n | 0.0.1 | — |
| pypi | datadog-ray | 0.0.1 | 20 |
| pypi | datadog-tls | 0.0.1 | 13 |
| pypi | datadog-ceph | 0.0.1 | — |
| pypi | datadog-crio | 0.0.1 | — |

## Vitality — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 2133 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 53 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 54 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~15.8 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 9 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 88/100 (Excellent)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 49.5 / 60 | 1,129 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 1,551 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 15 / 15 | 498 watchers |

### Community health — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (BSD-3-Clause) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | met | 7.2 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 91/100 (Excellent)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 96/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 11 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 19.3 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 14% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 97 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 82/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 37.8 / 42 | 90% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 25.4 / 30 | 19924/23574 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | partial | 6.5 / 13 | 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 3,261 followers of DataDog |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 1199 public repos, account ~16 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 84/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 7 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 160 days ago |
| Version history | partial | 4 / 20 | 1 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 89/100 (Excellent)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 68 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 4 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 46/100 (Weak)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 45/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | met | 25 / 25 | go.sum |
| CodeQL workflow | met | 20 / 20 | — |

### Dependency advisories — 49/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 417 resolved dependencies against OSV; 41 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 10.4 / 35 | 3 affected: requests 2.18.4 (high 7.5), requests 2.19.1 (high 7.5), requests 2.20.1 (moderate 6.1) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 26.2 / 40 | 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2864 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 87/100 (Excellent)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .builders/AGENTS.md, .builders/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, clickhouse/AGENTS.md, clickhouse/CLAUDE.md, ddev/src/ddev/utils/github_async/AGENTS.md, ddev/src/ddev/utils/github_async/CLAUDE.md, ddev/tests/AGENTS.md, ddev/tests/utils/github_async/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 89 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 94/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | envoy/tests/docker/api_v2/go.mod, envoy/tests/docker/api_v3/go.mod, quarkus/tests/docker/micrometer-quickstart/pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | datadog_checks_base/datadog_checks/py.typed, ddev/src/ddev/py.typed, rethinkdb/datadog_checks/rethinkdb/py.typed |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 40 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 82/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (datadog_checks_base/datadog_checks/py.typed, ddev/src/ddev/py.typed, rethinkdb/datadog_checks/rethinkdb/py.typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.7 / 55 | 32/5244 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | datadog_checks_base/datadog_checks/base/utils/genresources/proto/genericresource.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | sample |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 21 authors (cap 12)
- Could not fetch pypi package 'integrations-core' from its registry
- Advisory severity resolved for 120 of 155 advisories (lookup cap); the remainder are reported as unknown severity
- OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (2026/08/13 05:03:47 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt