# grafana/pyroscope — health index 98/100 (Exceptional)

> Inspection of the public repository grafana/pyroscope by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 98 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/grafana/pyroscope
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/grafana/pyroscope
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/grafana/pyroscope/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/g/grafana/pyroscope.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-02
- Methodology: metrics 2.3.1, report schema 0.29.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 96/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 81/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 87/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 92/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 68/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 86/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 86 is calibrated to 98 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Continuous Profiling Platform. Debug performance issues down to a single line of code |
| Homepage | https://grafana.com/oss/pyroscope/ |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | AGPL-3.0 |
| Stars | 11,605 |
| Forks | 783 |
| Created | 2020-12-31 |
| Last push | 2026-08-01 |
| Latest release | v2.2.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 705 |
| Bus factor | 4 |
| Topics | continuous-profiling, profiling, performance, golang, ruby, python, find-bottlenecks, linux, pyroscope, observability, monitoring, devops, developer-tools, hacktoberfest |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/grafana/pyroscope/v2 | v2.2.0 | — |
| go | github.com/grafana/pyroscope/api | v1.5.0 | — |
| go | github.com/grafana/pyroscope/lidia | v0.0.2 | — |

## Vitality — 96/100 (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 1 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 705 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 0 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 12 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~10.3 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 4 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 81/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 95/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 11,605 stars |
| Forks | partial | 24.1 / 25 | 783 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 10.9 / 15 | 91 watchers |

### Community health — 65/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (AGPL-3.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 87/100 (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) — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 43.2 / 54 | 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 18.7 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 17% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 96 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 15 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 85/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 32.3 / 42 | 77% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 26.3 / 30 | 3369/3837 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 7,146 followers of grafana |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 587 public repos, account ~12 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 3 package(s) on go |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 12 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 16 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 92/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 94/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 14 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 | not met | 0 / 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 — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://grafana.com/oss/pyroscope/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 14 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 68/100 (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 — 69/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 5.2 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 6 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 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 15 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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 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 | 142 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 62/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1284 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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 | 6.2 / 35 | 7 affected: google.golang.org/grpc v1.80.0 (critical 9.1), golang.org/x/net v0.52.0 (moderate 6.5), github.com/klauspost/compress v1.17.8 (unknown), +4 more |
| 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 | met | 40 / 40 | no advisory has been public longer than 90 days |

### 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 — 86/100 (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 | .cursor/rules/development-workflow.mdc, .cursor/rules/go-backend.mdc, .cursor/rules/go-testing.mdc, .cursor/rules/pyroscope-general.mdc, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, ui/CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 90 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 84/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, docs/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yml, eslint.config.js |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | examples/language-sdk-instrumentation/nodejs/express-ts-inline/tsconfig.json, examples/language-sdk-instrumentation/nodejs/express-ts/tsconfig.json, ui/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 21 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 2 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |

### Code legibility for models — 99/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.3 / 55 | 19/1479 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | api/adhocprofiles/v1/adhocprofiles.proto, api/capabilities/v1/feature_flags.proto, api/debuginfo/v1alpha1/debuginfo.proto, api/google/v1/profile.proto, api/ingester/v1/ingester.proto, api/metastore/v1/compactor.proto, api/metastore/v1/index.proto, api/metastore/v1/query.proto, api/metastore/v1/raft_log/raft_log.proto, api/metastore/v1/tenant.proto, api/metastore/v1/types.proto, api/push/v1/push.proto, api/querier/v1/querier.proto, api/query/v1/query.proto, api/segmentwriter/v1/push.proto, api/settings/v1/recording_rules.proto, api/settings/v1/setting.proto, api/status/v1/status.proto, api/storegateway/v1/storegateway.proto, api/types/v1/types.proto, api/vcs/v1/vcs.proto, api/version/v1/version.proto, pkg/frontend/frontendpb/frontend.proto, pkg/metastore/raftnode/raftnodepb/raft_node.proto, pkg/querier/stats/stats.proto, pkg/scheduler/schedulerpb/scheduler.proto, pkg/segmentwriter/client/distributor/placement/adaptiveplacement/adaptive_placementpb/adaptive_placement.proto, pkg/util/httpgrpc/httpgrpc.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example, examples, samples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Advisory severity resolved for 120 of 170 advisories (lookup cap); the remainder are reported as unknown severity

## 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