Acontext
Agent Skills as a Memory Layer
Is Acontext safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare Acontext
How does it stack up against its Agent Skills neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: Acontext scores 49.0/100 (Grade D), ranked #274 of 384 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 4.0/10; 60% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-10-24. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How Acontext could raise its score
Each line changes one public signal and recomputes with the live scoring function. The gains don't add up exactly, because the score is capped near the top.
- Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 4.0 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CII-Best-Practices 0, Fuzzing 0 +10.5 → 59.5 C · #111 of 384
- Sign every commit60% signed today +2.0 → 51.0 C · #238 of 384
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Acontext and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the code you run. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities and, for skills, AST02 Supply Chain Compromise.
-
Source Partly signed
github.com/memodb-io/Acontext, Apache-2.0, last pushed 2026-10-24. 60% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
-
Review and release Mixed
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 4.0/10 (scanned Oct 30, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review2
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies6
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 0CI-Tests 8CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 2Contributors 10Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 10Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 0Packaging 10Pinned-Dependencies 6SAST 0Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases 0Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages None
No registry package. Acontext is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.
Changes to this chain
- 2026-08-26 OSSF Scorecard: 4.0/10
Evidence behind this score
Coverage C: 2 of 5 independent evidence types found.
- GitHub repository data
- Package downloads (missing)
- Supply-chain checks
- Public actions (missing)
- Community mentions (missing)
Verify this score yourself
Every build re-issues Acontext’s score as an Ed25519-signed credential, valid for 7 days. You can check it offline against HVTracker’s published key; if anyone changes a number after signing, verification fails.
What this score doesn’t check
It covers who ships the code, not what the code does. It doesn’t read the skill’s instructions for injected instructions, watch runtime behaviour, or find bugs nobody has disclosed yet. For that, run a content scanner before you install it, such as Cisco Skill Scanner.
How Acontext compares in Agent Skills
- #272 Claude OSINT 49.1 +0.1
- #273 Shuorenhua 49.1 +0.1
- #274 Acontext 49.0 this agent
- #275 Product Manager Skills 48.9 −0.1
- #276 Browser Act Skills 48.9 −0.1
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Acontext’s 49.0.
Where the 49.0 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Agent Skills average
49.0 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceAcontext Agent Skills average (384 agents)
Quick Trust Read
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade D reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Evidence coverage C is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (2 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Rank Trend
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
61.9 / 100Common questions about Acontext
Does Acontext publish package provenance?
Does Acontext have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is Acontext actively maintained?
What license does Acontext use?
Are Acontext's commits signed?
Not a safety endorsement. HVTracker describes what public signals show, not whether a project is safe for your use case. Run your own security review before adopting in production.
AI agent surface
MCP, providers, tool surface
These runtime-trust fields — detected from public repo docs and manifests — contribute a bounded adjustment to this project's HVTrust score alongside supply-chain evidence. The exact values each field can add or subtract are documented in the methodology → Compare this surface across every listed agent in the capability matrix →
- database
- MCP signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Detected changes to Acontext's runtime surface and supply-chain posture, from daily public-signal snapshots. A change here means our detectors see something different — a genuinely changed capability, or better evidence of an existing one.
Maintain Acontext?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores Acontext from public signals only — we never contact maintainers first. If a signal is wrong, stale, or missing (provenance you publish, a Scorecard you run, signed releases), tell us and we'll review it. Corrections are public and tracked on GitHub.
Reputation Timeline
Signal history
Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →
For maintainers
[](https://hvtracker.net/agents/acontext)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/acontext"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/acontext.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Agent Skills
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON