# open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rust-contrib — health index 94/100 (Exceptional)

> Inspection of the public repository open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rust-contrib by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 94 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/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rust-contrib
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rust-contrib
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rust-contrib/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/o/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rust-contrib.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-01
- Methodology: metrics 2.5.0, report schema 0.27.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 96/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 79/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 83/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 57/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 85/100 | Excellent |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 74/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | OpenTelemetry Contrib Packages for Rust |
| Classification | network-service, library |
| Primary language | Rust |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 89 |
| Forks | 93 |
| Created | 2023-11-09 |
| Last push | 2026-08-01 |
| Latest release | opentelemetry-etw-traces-0.1.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 214 |
| Bus factor | 3 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates | stress | 0.3.0 | 7 |
| crates | opentelemetry-aws | 0.20.0 | 145,261 |
| crates | opentelemetry-contrib | 0.24.0 | 18,285 |
| crates | opentelemetry-datadog | 0.20.0 | 867,749 |
| crates | opentelemetry-etw-logs | 0.11.0 | 60 |
| crates | opentelemetry-etw-traces | 0.1.0 | 4 |
| crates | opentelemetry-etw-metrics | 0.11.0 | 203 |

## Vitality — 96/100 (Exceptional)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 93/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 29.1 / 36 | 42/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 214 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 — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 13 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 1 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~8.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

## Community & Adoption — 79/100 (Good)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 31.5 / 60 | 89 stars |
| Forks | partial | 16.4 / 25 | 93 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 5.6 / 15 | 11 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) — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | met | 80 / 80 | 1,031,562 downloads/month across crates |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 83/100 (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) — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 36 / 54 | 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 17.4 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 23% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 98 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 22 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 78/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 26 / 42 | 62% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 26.5 / 30 | 508/576 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 | 7,641 followers of open-telemetry |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 106 public repos, account ~7 yr old |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 6 package(s) on crates |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 1 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 24 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 57/100 (Moderate)

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

### Engineering practices — 68/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 12 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 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 — 40/100 (Weak)

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

## Security — 85/100 (Excellent)

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 — 87/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 3.8 / 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 22 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 | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not 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 | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 76/100 (Good)

Matched the crates:stress@0.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 25 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 26.6 / 35 | 1 affected: structopt 0.3.26 (unknown) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 17.3 / 25 | 3 affected: atty 0.2.14 (low), ansi_term 0.12.1 (unknown), proc-macro-error 1.0.4 (unknown) |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 32 / 40 | 4 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1854 days ago |

### 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 — 74/100 (Good)

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 — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 71 of 71 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 87/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | opentelemetry-exporter-geneva/geneva-uploader-ffi/examples/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 6 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 29 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 8 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54 / 55 | 4/214 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/api/annotations.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/api/client.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/api/field_behavior.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/api/http.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/api/label.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/api/launch_stage.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/api/monitored_resource.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/api/resource.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/devtools/cloudtrace/v2/trace.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/devtools/cloudtrace/v2/tracing.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/logging/type/http_request.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/logging/type/log_severity.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/logging/v2/log_entry.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/logging/v2/logging.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/logging/v2/logging_config.proto, opentelemetry-stackdriver/proto/google/rpc/status.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- crates package 'stress' points at a different repository (https://github.com/cbzehner/stress); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch crates package 'opentelemetry-config' from its registry

## 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