Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-06 16:16 UTC

qdrant / rust-client

Rust client for Qdrant vector search engine

RustApache-2.0★ 413 stars⑂ 82 forkssince Jun 2022View on GitHub ↗

qdrant/rust-client holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on Security (61/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

88
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

QdrantOrganization
1,777 followers132 public repossince Oct 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioqdrant-client1.19.0298,093532 days agoclientgrpcqdrantsearch-enginevector-searchapi-bindingsdatabase

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence18/52 weeks with commits
13.8/18Commit volume33 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained15 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year33
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases21 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 2 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~73.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv1.19.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases73.9
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?

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.4/60Stars413 stars
15.9/25Forks82 forks
4.7/15Watchers8 watchers
Inputs used
forks82
stars413
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
73/80Monthly downloads298,093 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesqdrant-client
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads3,252,818
monthly_downloads298,093
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

80Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth24 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled24
top_contributor_share0.277
How it's scored
27.3/42Issue resolution65% of issues closed
25.9/30PR acceptance188/218 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs188
open_issues22
closed_issues41
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.651
closed_unmerged_prs30
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
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
23.4/25Owner reach1,777 followers of qdrant
24.5/25Track record132 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,777
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginqdrant
public_repos132
account_age_days2,109
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history53 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesqdrant-client
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://crates.io/crates/qdrant-client
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsqdrant, rust-client, vector-search-engine
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://crates.io/crates/qdrant-client
docs_sitehttps://crates.io/crates/qdrant-client
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained15 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
1/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

70Good · 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 history81 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.81
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
8/10Demonstrated agent practice4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.04
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes1/220 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes433,060
source_files_sampled220
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)proto/collections.proto, proto/collections_service.proto, proto/json_with_int.proto, proto/points.proto, proto/points_service.proto, proto/qdrant.proto, proto/qdrant_common.proto, proto/quota_internal.proto, proto/snapshots_service.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesproto/collections.proto, proto/collections_service.proto, proto/json_with_int.proto, proto/points.proto, proto/points_service.proto, proto/qdrant.proto, proto/qdrant_common.proto, proto/quota_internal.proto, proto/snapshots_service.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

413GitHub stars
24contributors
33commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
21releases
2bus factor
22open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 82 ⇿
0Stars
82Forks
20Releases

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.

0204060801008122022-072024-062026-06
Major 0Minor 12Patch 8

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-06 16:16 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
2SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iotonic0.14.6Cargo.toml
crates.iotonic-prost0.14.6Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost0.14.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioprost-types0.14.3Cargo.toml
crates.ioanyhow1.0.102Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1.0.228Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1.0.150Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest0.13.4Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures0.3.32Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1.52.3Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-util0.3.32Cargo.toml
crates.ioderive_builder0.20.2Cargo.toml
crates.iothiserror2.0.18Cargo.toml
crates.iosemver1.0.28Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid1.23.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioparking_lot0.12.4Cargo.toml
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioanyhowdirect
crates.ioderive_builderdirect
crates.iofuturesdirect
crates.iofutures-utildirect
crates.ioparking_lotdirect
crates.ioprostdirect
crates.ioprost-typesdirect
crates.ioreqwestdirect
crates.iosemverdirect
crates.ioserdedirect
crates.ioserde_jsondirect
crates.iothiserrordirect
crates.iotokiodirect
crates.iotonicdirect
crates.iotonic-prostdirect
crates.iouuiddirect
crates.iotonic-prost-buildindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io.