Instrumentation Score: Quantifying Telemetry Quality

Juraci Paixão Kröhling
OllyGarden

As observability engineers, we navigate a sea of telemetry daily. We instrument our applications, configure collectors, and build dashboards, all in pursuit of understanding our complex distributed systems. Yet, amidst this flood of data, a critical question often remains unspoken, or at best, answered by gut feeling: "Is our telemetry actually good?" We see the symptoms of bad telemetry — slow incident response, sky-high observability bills, and misleading alerts — but pinpointing the root causes in the instrumentation itself, and driving consistent improvements, remains a significant challenge. What if we could move beyond subjective assessments and cultivate a more data-driven approach to telemetry quality?

For too long, evaluating instrumentation effectiveness has been a subjective exercise. We've lacked a common language or a standard measure to truly understand if our telemetry is enriching our insights or just overgrowing the plot. Today, we're not just talking about a concept; we're inviting you to participate in shaping a foundational element for better observability: the Instrumentation Score specification. OllyGarden has initiated this open-source effort to provide a standardized way to measure the quality and effectiveness of OpenTelemetry instrumentation.

What Is the Instrumentation Score?

At its core, the Instrumentation Score is a numerical value derived from analyzing OTLP (OpenTelemetry Protocol) data streams. It's not a black box. The score is calculated based on a set of rules, each targeting a specific aspect of instrumentation quality. Each rule has a defined impact (e.g., Critical, Important, Normal, Low) and a weight, allowing for a nuanced assessment of your telemetry.

The primary focus is on OpenTelemetry, leveraging its semantic conventions and best practices as the bedrock for rule definitions. The score aims to be:

  • Objective: Providing a consistent, quantifiable measure, removing subjectivity.
  • Actionable: Highlighting specific areas of non-conformance so engineers know exactly what to fix.
  • Standardized: Offering a common and portable benchmark for services, teams, or even across organizations over time.

The Role of Rules

The true power of the Instrumentation Score lies in its rules, which codify known best practices and anti-patterns that directly impact data usability, cost, and analytical value. For instance, rules can ensure fundamental data integrity by flagging telemetry missing critical attributes like service.name, which is essential for aggregation, filtering, and ownership in most backends. Other rules address common cost and performance anti-patterns, such as identifying metric attributes with excessively high cardinality that can explode database costs and cripple query performance, or detecting overly large traces that increase network overhead and storage with verbose, low-value data.

Furthermore, the score highlights trace completeness by pointing out broken traces or missing root spans that hinder end-to-end visibility. It also encourages efficient signal usage, for example, by discouraging the use of expensive logs for simple event counting when metrics would be a more performant and cost-effective choice. These examples merely scratch the surface; the specification is designed to be extensible, allowing the community to define rules for a wide array of scenarios, including adherence to specific semantic conventions or the use of appropriate instrumentation SDK versions.

The need for such a standardized approach isn't just theoretical; it's a practical challenge faced by engineering teams globally. James Moessis, Senior Software Engineer in the Observability team at Atlassian, shares this perspective: "Instrumentation Score is a much-needed innovation that fills a critical gap in the observability ecosystem. It's the kind of idea that made me think, 'We should have done this ages ago.' At Atlassian, our observability team is constantly tackling telemetry quality issues across the company's many services. With so many services, it can sometimes feel like we are trying to boil the ocean. Having a standardized 'instrumentation score' would certainly help us identify and report to teams where issues are."

James' sentiment echoes what many in the observability field experience. It underscores the value of a common yardstick to help teams prioritize improvements and communicate effectively about telemetry health. This widespread need is precisely why we believe the Instrumentation Score must be an open, collaborative effort.

An Open Invitation: Why Your Contribution Is Crucial

OllyGarden has kickstarted the Instrumentation Score specification and is committed to its development as an open-source, community-driven standard. We are ensuring this initiative fosters an open governance model, drawing support and contributions from across the industry, including companies like Dash0, New Relic, Splunk, Datadog, and Grafana Labs.

But the true strength and comprehensiveness of this score will come from you — the observability engineers in the trenches. The initial set of rules and conventions provides a solid foundation, but we all know that "good" and "bad" telemetry patterns often emerge from hard-won experience with specific technologies, platforms, or failure modes.

This is where you come in. We are actively seeking contributions to the Instrumentation Score specification:

  • Propose New Rules: Encounter a common instrumentation pitfall that isn't covered? Define it. What about rules for serverless environments, service meshes, or emerging technologies like AI/ML observability? Your insights are invaluable.
  • Refine Existing Rule Concepts: Have ideas on how to better detect a particular anti-pattern? Suggest improvements to rule definition, impact weighting, or metadata.
  • Share Edge Cases and Anti-Patterns: Help us build a comprehensive knowledge base by sharing real-world examples of telemetry that led you astray or cost you a fortune.
  • Debate and Discuss: Engage in discussions around rule definitions, ensuring they are clear, actionable, and universally applicable.

By contributing, you help codify the collective wisdom of the observability community into a practical, actionable standard. This isn't just about defining rules; it's about creating a shared understanding and a common language for telemetry excellence. You'll be shaping a tool that benefits the entire ecosystem, helps tame telemetry chaos, and ultimately makes our collective lives as engineers easier.

Getting Started and Making an Impact

The Instrumentation Score is more than just a number; it's a catalyst for conversation and continuous improvement in how we instrument our systems. It's a tool to help us all move from reactive troubleshooting to proactive telemetry optimization.

We invite you to:

1. Explore the Instrumentation Score landing page for an overview.
2. Dive into the specification on GitHub. This is where the collaborative work happens. Familiarize yourself with the current structure and rule ideas.
3. Contribute: Open an issue to discuss a new rule idea or suggest an improvement. Better yet, submit a pull request with your proposed rule definition, including its rationale, suggested severity, and how it could be detected. Let's build this together.

OllyGarden is proud to have planted the first seed for the Instrumentation Score. Now, let's cultivate it together. Let's build a standard that empowers every engineer to confidently answer "Yes, our telemetry is good, and here's how we know."

Juraci Paixão Kröhling is a Software Engineer at OllyGarden, OpenTelemetry Governing Board Member and CNCF Ambassador

Related Links

Hot Topics

The Latest

The Corporate Network Is Fading - Here's What Replaces It

For decades, enterprise networks were designed around a simple assumption: work happened inside the office. Applications lived in centralized data centers, employees connected through internal infrastructure, and security focused on protecting the perimeter that surrounded everything ... But the way organizations operate today bears little resemblance to that environment. Cloud platforms host critical applications, employees connect from homes and airports as often as they do from offices, and partners collaborate through shared systems that exist far beyond corporate walls. In short, the corporate network no longer resembles the environment it was designed to protect ...

IT Leaders Must Establish a Network Data Architecture Practice

As an analyst who researches how IT organizations design, build, and operate their networks, I find that network data is a constant source of pain. Network teams struggle with data quality, fragmentation, authority, access, and trust. And these issues undermine everything they try to do. Here are the numbers: Only 45% of network teams are completely confident in the accuracy of their network source of truth, which documents the intent of their network ...

Data Center Outages Are Decreasing but More Costly

The 2026 Global Data Center Survey from Uptime Institute reveals an industry navigating workforce constraints, escalating outage expenses, even as rising costs remain the top concern for management teams ...

Observability Has a Physical Layer Now: What AI Infrastructure Teaches IT Operations

The next observability gap may not be in the code. It may be under the rack. That sounds strange until you think about how AI incidents actually feel in the middle of an investigation ... The application dashboard may be accurate. It may also be stopping at the wrong boundary. AI systems depend on software, but they also depend on a dense physical stack: racks, power paths, thermal margin, maintenance activity and, in many environments, liquid cooling. Those physical dependencies can change slowly before they look like a software incident ...

TLS Certificate Expiration Is Becoming an Observability Problem

Certificate expiration is the rare outage you can see coming. Every TLS certificate carries the date it stops working, so the moment it will begin breaking connections is knowable in advance. That's what makes an expired certificate such a frustrating way to lose a service. What's changing now is how often that date comes around ...

Enterprise Cloud Observability: Choosing the Right Starting Point

Enterprises operate different combinations of workloads across cloud, hybrid and multicloud environments. For business-critical workloads, teams need to consider monitoring and observability early so they can detect health issues, investigate failures, and understand operational impact. Organizations place workloads on cloud platforms based on a combination of technical requirements, economics, existing dependencies, organizational standards, and business priorities. Their monitoring priorities therefore depend on what they operate and where those systems run. Those priorities will not look the same for every organization ...

AI Is Making Incident Management More Complex - Bad Data Makes It Harder

Top-performing businesses prioritize data-driven decision making, enabling leaders to move from intuition and gut feel towards evidence-based judgment. But that judgment is only sound when the data underpinning decisions is accurate. With incident management, data accuracy is particularly important. Long-term revenue, customer trust, and operational stability depend on high-quality data that enables teams to quickly identify and address the root cause of major incidents. Against this backdrop, governance becomes a critical endeavor to ensure the right data drives the right action ...

MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Podcast - Episode 26: Network Compliance

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 26, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses network compliance ... 

Why VM and Container Monitoring Is Not Enough for Cloud-Hosted Autonomous Agents

Most production autonomous agents do not run in a vacuum. They run inside cloud infrastructure: virtual machines, containers, pods, managed clusters or private servers. That is where most operations teams start monitoring. Is the VM alive? Is the container running? Did the pod restart? Is memory stable? Is CPU too high? Did the health check pass? Those signals are useful. They tell you whether the shell around the agent is alive. They do not tell you whether the agent inside is actually operational ...

Beyond Monitoring: Why IT Operations Must Evolve into Decision Operations

Enterprise IT environments have never been more observable ... Yet many organizations still grapple with outages, lengthy incident resolution cycles, and increasing complexity. Most teams do not suffer from a shortage of data. They struggle to determine what deserves attention and what action to take next ... Enterprise IT operations must move beyond monitoring and visibility. The next stage of maturity is decision operations, an approach that helps teams make faster, better-informed decisions ...

Instrumentation Score: Quantifying Telemetry Quality

Juraci Paixão Kröhling
OllyGarden

As observability engineers, we navigate a sea of telemetry daily. We instrument our applications, configure collectors, and build dashboards, all in pursuit of understanding our complex distributed systems. Yet, amidst this flood of data, a critical question often remains unspoken, or at best, answered by gut feeling: "Is our telemetry actually good?" We see the symptoms of bad telemetry — slow incident response, sky-high observability bills, and misleading alerts — but pinpointing the root causes in the instrumentation itself, and driving consistent improvements, remains a significant challenge. What if we could move beyond subjective assessments and cultivate a more data-driven approach to telemetry quality?

For too long, evaluating instrumentation effectiveness has been a subjective exercise. We've lacked a common language or a standard measure to truly understand if our telemetry is enriching our insights or just overgrowing the plot. Today, we're not just talking about a concept; we're inviting you to participate in shaping a foundational element for better observability: the Instrumentation Score specification. OllyGarden has initiated this open-source effort to provide a standardized way to measure the quality and effectiveness of OpenTelemetry instrumentation.

What Is the Instrumentation Score?

At its core, the Instrumentation Score is a numerical value derived from analyzing OTLP (OpenTelemetry Protocol) data streams. It's not a black box. The score is calculated based on a set of rules, each targeting a specific aspect of instrumentation quality. Each rule has a defined impact (e.g., Critical, Important, Normal, Low) and a weight, allowing for a nuanced assessment of your telemetry.

The primary focus is on OpenTelemetry, leveraging its semantic conventions and best practices as the bedrock for rule definitions. The score aims to be:

  • Objective: Providing a consistent, quantifiable measure, removing subjectivity.
  • Actionable: Highlighting specific areas of non-conformance so engineers know exactly what to fix.
  • Standardized: Offering a common and portable benchmark for services, teams, or even across organizations over time.

The Role of Rules

The true power of the Instrumentation Score lies in its rules, which codify known best practices and anti-patterns that directly impact data usability, cost, and analytical value. For instance, rules can ensure fundamental data integrity by flagging telemetry missing critical attributes like service.name, which is essential for aggregation, filtering, and ownership in most backends. Other rules address common cost and performance anti-patterns, such as identifying metric attributes with excessively high cardinality that can explode database costs and cripple query performance, or detecting overly large traces that increase network overhead and storage with verbose, low-value data.

Furthermore, the score highlights trace completeness by pointing out broken traces or missing root spans that hinder end-to-end visibility. It also encourages efficient signal usage, for example, by discouraging the use of expensive logs for simple event counting when metrics would be a more performant and cost-effective choice. These examples merely scratch the surface; the specification is designed to be extensible, allowing the community to define rules for a wide array of scenarios, including adherence to specific semantic conventions or the use of appropriate instrumentation SDK versions.

The need for such a standardized approach isn't just theoretical; it's a practical challenge faced by engineering teams globally. James Moessis, Senior Software Engineer in the Observability team at Atlassian, shares this perspective: "Instrumentation Score is a much-needed innovation that fills a critical gap in the observability ecosystem. It's the kind of idea that made me think, 'We should have done this ages ago.' At Atlassian, our observability team is constantly tackling telemetry quality issues across the company's many services. With so many services, it can sometimes feel like we are trying to boil the ocean. Having a standardized 'instrumentation score' would certainly help us identify and report to teams where issues are."

James' sentiment echoes what many in the observability field experience. It underscores the value of a common yardstick to help teams prioritize improvements and communicate effectively about telemetry health. This widespread need is precisely why we believe the Instrumentation Score must be an open, collaborative effort.

An Open Invitation: Why Your Contribution Is Crucial

OllyGarden has kickstarted the Instrumentation Score specification and is committed to its development as an open-source, community-driven standard. We are ensuring this initiative fosters an open governance model, drawing support and contributions from across the industry, including companies like Dash0, New Relic, Splunk, Datadog, and Grafana Labs.

But the true strength and comprehensiveness of this score will come from you — the observability engineers in the trenches. The initial set of rules and conventions provides a solid foundation, but we all know that "good" and "bad" telemetry patterns often emerge from hard-won experience with specific technologies, platforms, or failure modes.

This is where you come in. We are actively seeking contributions to the Instrumentation Score specification:

  • Propose New Rules: Encounter a common instrumentation pitfall that isn't covered? Define it. What about rules for serverless environments, service meshes, or emerging technologies like AI/ML observability? Your insights are invaluable.
  • Refine Existing Rule Concepts: Have ideas on how to better detect a particular anti-pattern? Suggest improvements to rule definition, impact weighting, or metadata.
  • Share Edge Cases and Anti-Patterns: Help us build a comprehensive knowledge base by sharing real-world examples of telemetry that led you astray or cost you a fortune.
  • Debate and Discuss: Engage in discussions around rule definitions, ensuring they are clear, actionable, and universally applicable.

By contributing, you help codify the collective wisdom of the observability community into a practical, actionable standard. This isn't just about defining rules; it's about creating a shared understanding and a common language for telemetry excellence. You'll be shaping a tool that benefits the entire ecosystem, helps tame telemetry chaos, and ultimately makes our collective lives as engineers easier.

Getting Started and Making an Impact

The Instrumentation Score is more than just a number; it's a catalyst for conversation and continuous improvement in how we instrument our systems. It's a tool to help us all move from reactive troubleshooting to proactive telemetry optimization.

We invite you to:

1. Explore the Instrumentation Score landing page for an overview.
2. Dive into the specification on GitHub. This is where the collaborative work happens. Familiarize yourself with the current structure and rule ideas.
3. Contribute: Open an issue to discuss a new rule idea or suggest an improvement. Better yet, submit a pull request with your proposed rule definition, including its rationale, suggested severity, and how it could be detected. Let's build this together.

OllyGarden is proud to have planted the first seed for the Instrumentation Score. Now, let's cultivate it together. Let's build a standard that empowers every engineer to confidently answer "Yes, our telemetry is good, and here's how we know."

Juraci Paixão Kröhling is a Software Engineer at OllyGarden, OpenTelemetry Governing Board Member and CNCF Ambassador

Related Links

Hot Topics

The Latest

The Corporate Network Is Fading - Here's What Replaces It

For decades, enterprise networks were designed around a simple assumption: work happened inside the office. Applications lived in centralized data centers, employees connected through internal infrastructure, and security focused on protecting the perimeter that surrounded everything ... But the way organizations operate today bears little resemblance to that environment. Cloud platforms host critical applications, employees connect from homes and airports as often as they do from offices, and partners collaborate through shared systems that exist far beyond corporate walls. In short, the corporate network no longer resembles the environment it was designed to protect ...

IT Leaders Must Establish a Network Data Architecture Practice

As an analyst who researches how IT organizations design, build, and operate their networks, I find that network data is a constant source of pain. Network teams struggle with data quality, fragmentation, authority, access, and trust. And these issues undermine everything they try to do. Here are the numbers: Only 45% of network teams are completely confident in the accuracy of their network source of truth, which documents the intent of their network ...

Data Center Outages Are Decreasing but More Costly

The 2026 Global Data Center Survey from Uptime Institute reveals an industry navigating workforce constraints, escalating outage expenses, even as rising costs remain the top concern for management teams ...

Observability Has a Physical Layer Now: What AI Infrastructure Teaches IT Operations

The next observability gap may not be in the code. It may be under the rack. That sounds strange until you think about how AI incidents actually feel in the middle of an investigation ... The application dashboard may be accurate. It may also be stopping at the wrong boundary. AI systems depend on software, but they also depend on a dense physical stack: racks, power paths, thermal margin, maintenance activity and, in many environments, liquid cooling. Those physical dependencies can change slowly before they look like a software incident ...

TLS Certificate Expiration Is Becoming an Observability Problem

Certificate expiration is the rare outage you can see coming. Every TLS certificate carries the date it stops working, so the moment it will begin breaking connections is knowable in advance. That's what makes an expired certificate such a frustrating way to lose a service. What's changing now is how often that date comes around ...

Enterprise Cloud Observability: Choosing the Right Starting Point

Enterprises operate different combinations of workloads across cloud, hybrid and multicloud environments. For business-critical workloads, teams need to consider monitoring and observability early so they can detect health issues, investigate failures, and understand operational impact. Organizations place workloads on cloud platforms based on a combination of technical requirements, economics, existing dependencies, organizational standards, and business priorities. Their monitoring priorities therefore depend on what they operate and where those systems run. Those priorities will not look the same for every organization ...

AI Is Making Incident Management More Complex - Bad Data Makes It Harder

Top-performing businesses prioritize data-driven decision making, enabling leaders to move from intuition and gut feel towards evidence-based judgment. But that judgment is only sound when the data underpinning decisions is accurate. With incident management, data accuracy is particularly important. Long-term revenue, customer trust, and operational stability depend on high-quality data that enables teams to quickly identify and address the root cause of major incidents. Against this backdrop, governance becomes a critical endeavor to ensure the right data drives the right action ...

MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Podcast - Episode 26: Network Compliance

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 26, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses network compliance ... 

Why VM and Container Monitoring Is Not Enough for Cloud-Hosted Autonomous Agents

Most production autonomous agents do not run in a vacuum. They run inside cloud infrastructure: virtual machines, containers, pods, managed clusters or private servers. That is where most operations teams start monitoring. Is the VM alive? Is the container running? Did the pod restart? Is memory stable? Is CPU too high? Did the health check pass? Those signals are useful. They tell you whether the shell around the agent is alive. They do not tell you whether the agent inside is actually operational ...

Beyond Monitoring: Why IT Operations Must Evolve into Decision Operations

Enterprise IT environments have never been more observable ... Yet many organizations still grapple with outages, lengthy incident resolution cycles, and increasing complexity. Most teams do not suffer from a shortage of data. They struggle to determine what deserves attention and what action to take next ... Enterprise IT operations must move beyond monitoring and visibility. The next stage of maturity is decision operations, an approach that helps teams make faster, better-informed decisions ...