# getsentry/sentry — health index 99/100 (Exceptional)

> Inspection of the public repository getsentry/sentry by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 99 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/getsentry/sentry
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/getsentry/sentry
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/getsentry/sentry/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/g/getsentry/sentry.svg
- Inspected: 2026-10-08
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 100/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 93/100 | Exceptional |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 95/100 | Exceptional |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 81/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 76/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 96/100 | Exceptional |

The weighted overall 90 is calibrated to 99 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Developer-first error tracking and performance monitoring |
| Classification | cli, network-service, web-ui |
| Homepage | https://sentry.io |
| Primary language | Python |
| Stars | 45,505 |
| Forks | 4,914 |
| Created | 2010-08-30 |
| Last push | 2026-10-08 |
| Latest release | scraps-v0.1.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 19,317 |
| Bus factor | 15 |
| Topics | crash-reporting, crash-reports, error-monitoring, monitoring, devops, csp-report, django, error-logging, sentry, python, monitor, apm, hacktoberfest, tag-production, fair-source |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | sentry | 23.7.1 | 2,905 |

## 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 | 19317 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 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 1 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~15.7 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 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 93/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 45,505 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 4,914 forks |
| Watchers | met | 15 / 15 | 672 watchers |

### Community health — 86/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| 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 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 95/100 (Exceptional)

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) — 97/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 15 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 19.8 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 12% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 97 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 89/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 37.8 / 42 | 90% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 26.5 / 30 | 94534/107044 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 3,245 followers of getsentry |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 813 public repos, account ~14 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 81/100 (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 | 31 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), setup.cfg ([flake8]) |
| 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 — 65/100 (Good)

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

## Security — 76/100 (Good)

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 — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | met | 25 / 25 | pnpm-lock.yaml, uv.lock |
| CodeQL workflow | met | 20 / 20 | — |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 294 resolved dependencies against OSV; 7 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 | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| 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 | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### 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 — 96/100 (Exceptional)

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 — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, src/AGENTS.md, src/CLAUDE.md, src/sentry/issues/derived/AGENTS.md, static/AGENTS.md, static/CLAUDE.md, tests/AGENTS.md, tests/CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt served by the project website (https://sentry.io/llms.txt) |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 91 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 97/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), setup.cfg ([flake8]) |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | src/bitfield/py.typed, src/django_picklefield/py.typed, src/sentry/py.typed, src/social_auth/py.typed, src/sudo/py.typed, static/app/serviceWorker/worker/tsconfig.json, static/oxlint/eslintPluginSentry/fixtures/tsconfig.json, static/packages/scraps/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 18 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| 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 (src/bitfield/py.typed, src/django_picklefield/py.typed, src/sentry/py.typed, src/social_auth/py.typed, src/sudo/py.typed, static/app/serviceWorker/worker/tsconfig.json, static/oxlint/eslintPluginSentry/fixtures/tsconfig.json, static/packages/scraps/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.5 / 55 | 170/17961 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | .github/workflows/openapi.yml, api-docs/openapi.json |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example, examples, samples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 23 authors (cap 12)
- pypi package 'sentry' points at a different repository (https://sentry.io); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- 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