# rhobs/obo-prometheus — health index 22/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository rhobs/obo-prometheus by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 22 out of 100, placing it in the Critical 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/rhobs/obo-prometheus
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/rhobs/obo-prometheus
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/rhobs/obo-prometheus/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/r/rhobs/obo-prometheus.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-25
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.27.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 43/100 | At risk |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 56/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 78/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 33/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 91/100 | Excellent |

A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a Critical ceiling of 29.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | The Prometheus monitoring system and time series database. |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 2 |
| Created | 2022-09-20 |
| Last push | 2026-06-29 |
| Latest release | v3.13.0-rc.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,907 |
| Bus factor | 6 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/prometheus/prometheus | v0.313.1 | — |

## Vitality — 90/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 91/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 25 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 33.9 / 36 | 49/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1907 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 — 88/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 100 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 32 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~13 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 27 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 43/100 (At risk)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 2 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 2 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 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 56/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 48.6 / 54 | 6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 19.5 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 13% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 97 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 48 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 46.8 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | not met | 0 / 38.2 | 0/154 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 13.2 / 25 | 67 followers of rhobs |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 69 public repos, account ~6 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 78/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 80/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 14 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.json, .golangci.yml, eslint.config.mjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | no pull request found |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

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

## Security — 33/100 (At risk)

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 — 25/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to Security posture and gives it a Critical ceiling of 29.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 2.5 | no pull request found |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 48 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 | 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 detected: CodeQL |
| Security-Policy | partial | 4.5 / 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 | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 66 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 65/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2113 resolved dependencies against OSV; 67 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 | partial | 8.9 / 35 | 2 affected: google.golang.org/grpc v1.81.1 (critical 9.1), golang.org/x/text v0.38.0 (unknown) |
| 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 — 35/100 (At risk)

1 resolved dependency(ies) resolve to a version the registry still serves and the OpenSSF corpus reports as malicious. Direct and indirect are treated alike: an install-time payload runs at any depth in the graph. A report here concerns the package as published, not the maintainers of this repository, which may have resolved it unknowingly.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | partial | 35 / 100 | 1 reported as malicious: jest-canvas-mock 2.5.3 |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

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 — 91/100 (Excellent)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 76 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 98/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, documentation/examples/Makefile, documentation/examples/remote_storage/Makefile, documentation/prometheus-mixin/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.json, .golangci.yml, eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | web/ui/mantine-ui/tsconfig.json, web/ui/module/codemirror-promql/tsconfig.json, web/ui/react-app/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 9 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 8 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 — 97/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 52.4 / 55 | 45/962 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | prompb/io/prometheus/client/metrics.proto, prompb/io/prometheus/write/v2/types.proto, prompb/remote.proto, prompb/types.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- go package 'github.com/prometheus/prometheus' points at a different repository (https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch go package 'github.com/prometheus/prometheus/internal/tools' 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