Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-02 01:30 UTC

open-telemetry / opentelemetry-proto

OpenTelemetry protocol (OTLP) specification and Protobuf definitions

Makefile · PythonApache-2.0★ 799 stars⑂ 318 forkssince May 2019View on GitHub ↗

open-telemetry/opentelemetry-proto holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

94
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 81 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

7,641 followers106 public repossince Apr 2019

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
28.4/36Commit cadence41/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume117 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year117
human_commit_share0.48
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year41
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases32 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 11 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~89.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tagv1.11.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases89.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47.1/60Stars799 stars
20.8/25Forks318 forks
9.4/15Watchers50 watchers
Inputs used
forks318
stars799
watchers50
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

89Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 24% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth85 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled85
top_contributor_share0.245
How it's scored
34.6/42Issue resolution82% of issues closed
24.7/30PR acceptance476/577 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs476
open_issues42
closed_issues195
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.823
closed_unmerged_prs101
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach7,641 followers of open-telemetry
25/25Track record106 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers7,641
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginopen-telemetry
public_repos106
account_age_days2,655
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://opentelemetry.io/docs/specs/otlp/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsopentelemetry
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://opentelemetry.io/docs/specs/otlp/
docs_sitehttps://opentelemetry.io/docs/specs/otlp/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

79Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
1.2/2.5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate7.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages73
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 73 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.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history46 of 48 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.958
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance52 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.52
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeMakefile without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageMakefile
largest_source_bytes4,634
source_files_sampled1
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)opentelemetry/proto/collector/logs/v1/logs_service.proto, opentelemetry/proto/collector/metrics/v1/metrics_service.proto, opentelemetry/proto/collector/profiles/v1development/profiles_service.proto, opentelemetry/proto/collector/trace/v1/trace_service.proto, opentelemetry/proto/common/v1/common.proto, opentelemetry/proto/logs/v1/logs.proto, opentelemetry/proto/metrics/v1/metrics.proto, opentelemetry/proto/processcontext/v1development/process_context.proto, opentelemetry/proto/profiles/v1development/profiles.proto, opentelemetry/proto/resource/v1/resource.proto, opentelemetry/proto/trace/v1/trace.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesopentelemetry/proto/collector/logs/v1/logs_service.proto, opentelemetry/proto/collector/metrics/v1/metrics_service.proto, opentelemetry/proto/collector/profiles/v1development/profiles_service.proto, opentelemetry/proto/collector/trace/v1/trace_service.proto, opentelemetry/proto/common/v1/common.proto, opentelemetry/proto/logs/v1/logs.proto, opentelemetry/proto/metrics/v1/metrics.proto, opentelemetry/proto/processcontext/v1development/process_context.proto, opentelemetry/proto/profiles/v1development/profiles.proto, opentelemetry/proto/resource/v1/resource.proto, opentelemetry/proto/trace/v1/trace.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

799GitHub stars
85contributors
117commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
32releases
4bus factor
42open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 318 ⇿
0Stars
318Forks
32Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

012525037530952019-052022-122026-07
Major 1Minor 29Patch 2

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10
7.4aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-08-02 01:30 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 73

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 73 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@textlint/ast-node-types15.7.1indirect
npm@textlint/markdown-to-ast15.7.1indirect
npm@types/mdast3.0.15indirect
npm@types/unist2.0.11indirect
npmanchor-markdown-header0.8.4indirect
npmbail1.0.5indirect
npmboundary2.0.0indirect
npmccount1.1.0indirect
npmcharacter-entities1.2.4indirect
npmcharacter-entities-legacy1.1.4indirect
npmcharacter-reference-invalid1.1.4indirect
npmdebug4.4.3indirect
npmdoctoc2.5.0indirect
npmdom-serializer1.4.1indirect
npmdomelementtype2.3.0indirect
npmdomhandler4.3.1indirect
npmdomutils2.8.0indirect
npmemoji-regex10.6.0indirect
npmentities2.2.0indirect
npmentities3.0.1indirect
npmescape-string-regexp4.0.0indirect
npmextend3.0.2indirect
npmfault1.0.4indirect
npmformat0.2.2indirect
npmhtmlparser27.2.0indirect
npmis-alphabetical1.0.4indirect
npmis-alphanumerical1.0.4indirect
npmis-buffer2.0.5indirect
npmis-decimal1.0.4indirect
npmis-hexadecimal1.0.4indirect
npmis-plain-obj2.1.0indirect
npmloglevel1.9.2indirect
npmlongest-streak2.0.4indirect
npmmarkdown-table2.0.0indirect
npmmdast-util-find-and-replace1.1.1indirect
npmmdast-util-footnote0.1.7indirect
npmmdast-util-from-markdown0.8.5indirect
npmmdast-util-frontmatter0.2.0indirect
npmmdast-util-gfm0.1.2indirect
npmmdast-util-gfm-autolink-literal0.1.3indirect
npmmdast-util-gfm-strikethrough0.2.3indirect
npmmdast-util-gfm-table0.1.6indirect
npmmdast-util-gfm-task-list-item0.1.6indirect
npmmdast-util-to-markdown0.6.5indirect
npmmdast-util-to-string2.0.0indirect
npmmicromark2.11.4indirect
npmmicromark-extension-footnote0.3.2indirect
npmmicromark-extension-frontmatter0.2.2indirect
npmmicromark-extension-gfm0.3.3indirect
npmmicromark-extension-gfm-autolink-literal0.5.7indirect
npmmicromark-extension-gfm-strikethrough0.6.5indirect
npmmicromark-extension-gfm-table0.4.3indirect
npmmicromark-extension-gfm-tagfilter0.3.0indirect
npmmicromark-extension-gfm-task-list-item0.3.3indirect
npmminimist1.2.8indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmneotraverse0.6.18indirect
npmparse-entities2.0.0indirect
npmremark-footnotes3.0.0indirect
npmremark-frontmatter3.0.0indirect
npmremark-gfm1.0.0indirect
npmremark-parse9.0.0indirect
npmremove-markdown0.6.4indirect
npmrepeat-string1.6.1indirect
npmstructured-source4.0.0indirect
npmtrough1.0.5indirect
npmunified9.2.2indirect
npmunist-util-is4.1.0indirect
npmunist-util-stringify-position2.0.3indirect
npmunist-util-visit-parents3.1.1indirect
npmvfile4.2.1indirect
npmvfile-message2.0.4indirect
npmzwitch1.0.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 73 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.