Activepieces
Website
AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents
Is Activepieces safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare Activepieces
How does it stack up against its Workflow Platforms neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: Activepieces scores 41.2/100 (Grade D), ranked #1159 of 1371 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; no OSSF Scorecard result yet; 100% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-10-09. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How Activepieces 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 to 9.0no OSSF Scorecard result yet +39.7 → 80.9 A · #5 of 26
- Publish build provenance for its packagesnpm publish --provenance from CI +35.6 → 76.8 B · #7 of 26
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Activepieces and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the package you install. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.
-
Source Signed
github.com/activepieces/activepieces, NOASSERTION, last pushed 2026-10-09. 100% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature, so changes trace to a verified account.
-
Review and release Not checked
No OpenSSF Scorecard result yet, so branch protection, code review and release signing are unverified.
-
Published packages Not linked
- npm @activepieces/shared No source link declared No build attestation
Without a build attestation, nothing proves the published files were built from this repository.
Changes to this chain
No change to package provenance, package source links, Scorecard coverage or license in HVTracker's daily snapshots of Activepieces.
Evidence behind this score
Coverage C: 2 of 5 independent evidence types found.
- GitHub repository data
- Package downloads
- Supply-chain checks (missing)
- Public actions (missing)
- Community mentions (missing)
Verify this score yourself
Every build re-issues Activepieces’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 tool descriptions or prompts for injected instructions, watch runtime behaviour, or find bugs nobody has disclosed yet. For that, run a content scanner before you connect it, such as Cisco MCP Scanner or Snyk Agent Scan.
How Activepieces compares in Workflow Platforms
- #22 Coze Studio 51.2 +10.0
- #23 LiteFlow 47.9 +6.7
- #24 Julep 44.2 +3.0
- #25 Activepieces 41.2 this agent
- #26 PromptFlow 40.4 −0.8
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Activepieces’s 41.2.
Where the 41.2 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Workflow Platforms average
41.2 / 100 · 67.0% confidenceActivepieces Workflow Platforms average (26 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
93.3 / 100Common questions about Activepieces
Does Activepieces publish package provenance?
Does Activepieces have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is Activepieces actively maintained?
What license does Activepieces use?
Are Activepieces'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 →
- MCP signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Detected changes to Activepieces'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 Activepieces?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores Activepieces 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/activepieces)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/activepieces"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/activepieces.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Workflow Platforms
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · npm Registry (downloads, provenance)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON