# datadog/DataDog-agent — health index 79/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository datadog/DataDog-agent by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 79 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/datadog/DataDog-agent
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/datadog/DataDog-agent
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/datadog/DataDog-agent/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/d/datadog/DataDog-agent.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-17
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.11.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 100/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 88/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 96/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 1/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 90/100 | Excellent |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Main repository for Datadog Agent |
| Homepage | https://docs.datadoghq.com/ |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 3,673 |
| Forks | 1,460 |
| Created | 2016-01-19 |
| Last push | 2026-07-17 |
| Latest release | 7.81.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 8,990 |
| Bus factor | 22 |
| Topics | monitoring, go, datadog, apm-agent, apm-instrumentation, distributed-tracing, logging, metrics, observability, open-telemetry, otel, profiling, tracing |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent | v0.0.0-20260521051500-e70f483e68d2 | — |

## Vitality — 100/100 (Excellent)

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

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

| 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 | 8990 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 1 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~6.2 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### 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 — 88/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 98/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 57.8 / 60 | 3,673 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 1,460 forks |
| Watchers | met | 15 / 15 | 522 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| 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 | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 90/100 (Excellent)

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) — 98/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 22 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 21 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 7% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 45.1 / 46.8 | 96% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 29.4 / 38.2 | 39193/51023 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 3,222 followers of DataDog |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 1194 public repos, account ~15 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on go |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 56 days ago |
| Version history | partial | 12 / 20 | 2 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 96/100 (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 | 40 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .golangci.yml, eslint.config.js |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://docs.datadoghq.com/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 13 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 1/100 (Critical)

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 — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | excluded | 0 / 25 | published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

### 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 — 90/100 (Excellent)

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 | .cursor/rules/agent_corecheck.mdc, .cursor/rules/e2e_tests.mdc, .cursor/rules/general-guidelines.mdc, .cursor/rules/go_module_bazel_migration.mdc, .cursor/rules/system_probe_modules.mdc, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, bazel/AGENTS.md, cmd/system-probe/modules/AGENTS.md, comp/anomalydetection/AGENTS.md, comp/anomalydetection/observer/AGENTS.md, comp/healthplatform/AGENTS.md, omnibus/AGENTS.md, packages/AGENTS.md, pkg/clusteragent/instrumentation/AGENTS.md, pkg/collector/corechecks/ebpf/AGENTS.md, pkg/gpu/AGENTS.md, tasks/AGENTS.md, test/e2e-framework/AGENTS.md, test/e2e-framework/CLAUDE.md, test/fakeintake/AGENTS.md, test/fakeintake/CLAUDE.md, test/new-e2e/tests/gpu/AGENTS.md, test/new-e2e/tests/installer/windows/AGENTS.md, test/new-e2e/tests/windows/AGENTS.md, test/new-e2e/tests/windows/fips-test/AGENTS.md, test/new-e2e/tests/windows/install-test/AGENTS.md, test/new-e2e/tests/windows/service-test/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 100/100 (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 | deps/curl/Makefile, pkg/gpu/cuda/testutil/testdata/Makefile, pkg/network/usm/testdata/bio_leak_test/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yml, eslint.config.js |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | internal/qbranch/anomalydetection-testbench/ui/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.6 / 55 | 81/12573 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | comp/forwarder/defaultforwarder/internal/retry/HttpTransactionProto.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/api/v1/api.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/autodiscovery/autodiscovery.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/dogstatsdhttp/payload.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/kubemetadata/kubemetadata.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/languagedetection/api.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/model/v1/model.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/privateactionrunner/actionsclient.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/privateactionrunner/error_code.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/privateactionrunner/private_actions.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/process/process.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/process/workloadmeta_process.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/procmgr/process_manager.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/remoteagent/flare.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/remoteagent/remoteagent.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/remoteagent/status.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/remoteagent/telemetry.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/remoteconfig/echo.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/remoteconfig/remoteconfig.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/sbom/workloadmeta_sbom.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/trace/agent_payload.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/trace/idx/span.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/trace/idx/tracer_payload.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/trace/span.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/trace/stats.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/trace/tracer_payload.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/workloadfilter/workloadfilter.proto, pkg/proto/datadog/workloadmeta/workloadmeta.proto, pkg/security/proto/api/api.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example, examples, sample |

## Collection warnings

- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM request failed: GitHub API error 500 for /repos/datadog/DataDog-agent/dependency-graph/sbom
- OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; 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