# GreptimeTeam/greptimedb — health index 82/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository GreptimeTeam/greptimedb by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 82 out of 100, placing it in the Good 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/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/g/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.17.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 95/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 75/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 78/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 100/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 84/100 | Good |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | The open-source Observability 2.0 database. One engine for metrics, logs, and traces — replacing Prometheus, Loki & ES. |
| Homepage | https://greptime.com/ |
| Primary language | Rust |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 6,488 |
| Forks | 507 |
| Created | 2022-04-11 |
| Last push | 2026-07-21 |
| Latest release | v1.2.0-d1e61a4ad-20260720-1784560249 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,344 |
| Bus factor | 5 |
| Topics | cloud-native, database, distributed, rust, sql, analytics, metrics, monitoring, logs, observability, traces, promql, observability-database, greptimedb, object-storage, opentelemetry, prometheus, ai-observability, wide-events |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates | api | 0.2.0 | 97 |
| crates | cli | 0.0.1 | 66 |
| crates | cmd | 0.0.0 | 18 |
| crates | auth | 0.1.0 | 15 |
| crates | flow | 0.3.5 | 52 |
| crates | cache | 0.0.0 | 18 |
| crates | index | 0.15.4 | 10 |
| crates | client | 0.1.1-beta1 | 51 |

## Vitality — 95/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 99/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 35.3 / 36 | 51/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1344 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 0 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~4 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 75/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 6,488 stars |
| Forks | partial | 22.5 / 25 | 507 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 9.6 / 15 | 54 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 25/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 20.4 / 80 | 33 downloads/month across crates |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 78/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 89/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 45.9 / 54 | 5 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 19.4 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 14% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 17 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 93/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 43 / 46.8 | 92% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 35.2 / 38.2 | 5842/6350 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 69/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 17.8 / 25 | 294 followers of GreptimeTeam |
| Track record | partial | 21.6 / 25 | 83 public repos, account ~4 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 53/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 2 package(s) on crates |
| Publish recency | partial | 4 / 35 | latest publish 2919 days ago |
| Version history | partial | 4 / 20 | 1 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 100/100 (Excellent)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 23 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://greptime.com/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 19 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 58/100 (Moderate)

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 — 64/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 17 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | met | 5 / 5 | project is fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 84 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 35/100 (At risk)

Matched the crates:api@0.2.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 39 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 9.5 / 35 | 1 affected: hyper 0.10.16 (critical 9.1) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 4 / 25 | 4 affected: traitobject 0.1.1 (critical 9.8), idna 0.1.5 (moderate 4.8), time 0.1.45 (moderate 6.2), +1 more |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 21.9 / 40 | 5 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2240 days ago |

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

| 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 (Excellent)

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 — 84/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 75/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, src/flow/AGENTS.md, src/frontend/AGENTS.md, src/meta-srv/AGENTS.md, src/metric-engine/AGENTS.md, src/mito2/AGENTS.md, tests/compatibility/AGENTS.md, tests/perf/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 88/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | cyborg/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, Nix, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 98/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.3 / 55 | 64/2052 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | src/log-store/proto/logstore.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples, sample |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch crates package 'tests-fuzz' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'tests-integration' from its registry
- crates package 'api' points at a different repository (https://github.com/hephex/api); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- crates package 'cli' points at a different repository (https://github.com/fengsp/cli); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- crates package 'flow' points at a different repository (https://github.com/viseztrance/flow); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- crates package 'cache' points at a different repository (https://github.com/krl/cache); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- crates package 'index' points at a different repository (https://github.com/spacejam/sled); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- crates package 'client' points at a different repository (https://github.com/dravenk/client/); excluded from ecosystem scoring

## 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