# vectordotdev/vector — health index 83/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository vectordotdev/vector by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Good 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/vectordotdev/vector
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/vectordotdev/vector
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/vectordotdev/vector/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/v/vectordotdev/vector.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-19
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.15.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 96/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 79/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 84/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 84/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 82/100 | Good |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | A high-performance observability data pipeline. |
| Homepage | https://vector.dev |
| Primary language | Rust |
| License | MPL-2.0 |
| Stars | 22,200 |
| Forks | 2,209 |
| Created | 2018-08-27 |
| Last push | 2026-07-18 |
| Latest release | v0.57.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,206 |
| Bus factor | 4 |
| Topics | logs, metrics, observability, forwarder, events, stream-processing, hacktoberfest, rust-lang, traces, pipelines, datadog, agent, cloud-native, etl, high-performance, monitoring, data-transformation, telemetry |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates | vector | 0.4.1 | 108 |
| crates | vdev | 0.3.4 | 95 |

## Vitality — 96/100 (Excellent)

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

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

| 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 | 1206 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 11 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 4 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~32.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

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

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

### Popularity & adoption — 97/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 22,200 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 2,209 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 12.1 / 15 | 152 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MPL-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) — 33/100 (At risk)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 26.4 / 80 | 95 downloads/month across crates |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 84/100 (Good)

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) — 84/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 43.2 / 54 | 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 25% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 57 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 82/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 35.2 / 46.8 | 75% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 32 / 38.2 | 12547/14994 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 73/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 18.4 / 25 | 363 followers of vectordotdev |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 106 public repos, account ~10 yr old |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on crates |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 31 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 6 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 84/100 (Good)

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

### Engineering practices — 74/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 47 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 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 — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://vector.dev |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 18 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 64/100 (Moderate)

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 — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| 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 57 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 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 3.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 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 | 18 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### 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 — 82/100 (Good)

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 — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, tests/antithesis/AGENTS.md, website/content/en/docs/setup/going-to-prod/arch/agent.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 81/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, lib/codecs/tests/data/protobuf/Makefile, rust-doc/Makefile, tests/data/Makefile, tests/data/protobuf/Makefile, website/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | website/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 7 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54 / 55 | 27/1442 source files over 60KB |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | lib/codecs/tests/data/protobuf/protos/google/protobuf/timestamp.proto, lib/codecs/tests/data/protobuf/protos/test_protobuf.proto, lib/codecs/tests/data/protobuf/protos/test_protobuf3.proto, lib/loki-logproto/proto/gogo.proto, lib/loki-logproto/proto/logproto.proto, lib/loki-logproto/proto/push.proto, lib/loki-logproto/proto/stats.proto, lib/opentelemetry-proto/src/proto/opentelemetry-proto/opentelemetry/proto/collector/logs/v1/logs_service.proto, lib/opentelemetry-proto/src/proto/opentelemetry-proto/opentelemetry/proto/collector/metrics/v1/metrics_service.proto, lib/opentelemetry-proto/src/proto/opentelemetry-proto/opentelemetry/proto/collector/trace/v1/trace_service.proto, lib/opentelemetry-proto/src/proto/opentelemetry-proto/opentelemetry/proto/common/v1/common.proto, lib/opentelemetry-proto/src/proto/opentelemetry-proto/opentelemetry/proto/logs/v1/logs.proto, lib/opentelemetry-proto/src/proto/opentelemetry-proto/opentelemetry/proto/metrics/v1/metrics.proto, lib/opentelemetry-proto/src/proto/opentelemetry-proto/opentelemetry/proto/resource/v1/resource.proto, lib/opentelemetry-proto/src/proto/opentelemetry-proto/opentelemetry/proto/trace/v1/trace.proto, lib/prometheus-parser/proto/prometheus-remote.proto, lib/prometheus-parser/proto/prometheus-types.proto, lib/vector-core/proto/event.proto, lib/vector-vrl/dnstap-parser/proto/dnstap.proto, proto/third-party/google/api/annotations.proto, proto/third-party/google/api/client.proto, proto/third-party/google/api/field_behavior.proto, proto/third-party/google/api/http.proto, proto/third-party/google/api/resource.proto, proto/third-party/google/protobuf/any.proto, proto/third-party/google/protobuf/descriptor.proto, proto/third-party/google/protobuf/empty.proto, proto/third-party/google/protobuf/timestamp.proto, proto/third-party/google/pubsub/v1/pubsub.proto, proto/third-party/google/rpc/status.proto, proto/vector/dd_metric.proto, proto/vector/dd_trace.proto, proto/vector/ddsketch_full.proto, proto/vector/observability.proto, proto/vector/vector.proto, tests/data/protobuf/test_proto.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples, sample |

## Collection warnings

- crates package 'vector' points at a different repository (https://github.com/stainless-steel/vector); excluded from ecosystem scoring

## 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