Is Codealive MCP safe to use?

Codealive MCP has an HVTrust score of 45.9/100 (Grade D), ranked #1103 of 1374 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Codealive MCP?

Codealive MCP scores 45.9/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 90 GitHub stars and is categorized under MCP Servers.

Codealive MCP

Repository

Website

Context engine for large codebases, exposed through MCP. Gives AI coding agents precise repository context; benchmarked at frontier-agent quality with ~25x lower model cost and 45% fewer tokens with semantic search.

MCP Servers Python Listed MIT

Is Codealive MCP safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

OSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10

Provenance None

Signed commits 34%

Last push 47d ago

Compare Codealive MCP

How does it stack up against its MCP Servers neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: Codealive MCP scores 45.9/100 (Grade D), ranked #1103 of 1374 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 4.9/10; 34% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-09-24. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Codealive MCP 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 4.9 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0, Fuzzing 0 +8.6 → 54.5 C · #480 of 778
Sign every commit34% signed today +3.3 → 49.2 D · #584 of 778

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Codealive MCP 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.

Source Partly signed

github.com/CodeAlive-AI/codealive-mcp, MIT, last pushed 2026-09-24. 34% 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 4.9/10 (scanned Nov 3, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection3
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies6
All 18 Scorecard checks

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 3

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 0

Contributors 6

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 10

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 6

Packaging 10

Pinned-Dependencies 6

SAST 10

Security-Policy 0

Signed-Releases 0

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 0
Published packages None

Distributed as the container image ghcr.io/codealive-ai/codealive-mcp:3.0.3; HVTracker doesn't check that registry's source link yet.

Changes to this chain

2026-08-26 OSSF Scorecard: 5.7/10

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 Codealive MCP’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.

Signed credential (JSON) How to verify

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 Codealive MCP compares in MCP Servers

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Codealive MCP’s 45.9.

Where the 45.9 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

45.9 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Codealive MCP MCP Servers average (778 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits

7.8 / 25

3.0 below avg 10.8

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

2.9 below avg 13.7

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

12.7 / 17

in line with avg 12.3

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

8.9 / 20

3.3 below avg 12.2

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

4.7 / 20

2.9 below avg 7.6

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.

Recent Changes

2026-10-24

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 41 spots (#1037 → #1078)

2026-10-24

Activity Score Changed

Activity score down 6pts (44 → 37)

2026-10-18

Grade Changed

Trust grade C → D

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 4.9/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.

Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.

Increase signed commits Raise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.

Refresh maintenance signals The repo was last pushed 47 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.

Compare with another agent View MCP Servers Report missing data

35.1

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#628

In MCP Servers

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

2026-09-29 2026-11-10

Activity & Reach

Stars

Forks

Last Push

2026-09-24

47 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

—

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

was #1103

Analysis

Activity Inputs

35.1 / 100

StarsRepository reach

11.8 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

18.5 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

0.0 / 25

CommunityFork signal

4.7 / 20

Common questions about Codealive MCP

Public trust evidence for Codealive MCP is thin: several supply-chain signals are missing or weak. This does not mean the project is unsafe — it means an outside observer cannot easily verify the usual integrity checks. Treat with extra scrutiny.

Does Codealive MCP publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for Codealive MCP. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.

Does Codealive MCP have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

Codealive MCP has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 4.9/10. The Scorecard checks for branch protection, signed releases, dependency updates, fuzzing, code review, and other supply-chain hygiene items. See the full check breakdown on this page.

Is Codealive MCP actively maintained?

Slowing down. Last push was 47 days ago — keep an eye on whether activity resumes.

What license does Codealive MCP use?

Codealive MCP ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are Codealive MCP's commits signed?

34% of the last 100 commits to Codealive MCP are verified-signed (GPG, SSH, S/MIME, or GitHub's signing flow). Signed commits help confirm that code was authored by who the commit claims.

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

Scored in HVTrust

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 Server Support

high confidence

Implemented

Codealive MCP appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

low confidence

None detected

No clear third-party provider dependency detected.

Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.

Tool / Plugin Surface

None detected

No clear plugin system or broad tool surface detected.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

Package Provenance Drift

N/A

No package source configured

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

MCP signal live
External deps live
Tool / plugin surface live
Package provenance drift live

How this surface has changed

Detected changes to Codealive MCP'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.

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

Maintain Codealive MCP?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Codealive MCP 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.

Submit a correction → Add the trust badge

Reputation Timeline

Signal history

2026-10-24

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 41 spots (#1037 → #1078)

2026-10-24

Activity Score Changed

Activity score down 6pts (44 → 37)

2026-10-18

Grade Changed

Trust grade C → D

2026-10-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 55 spots (#959 → #1014)

2026-10-12

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#933 → #944)

2026-10-09

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 21 spots (#906 → #927)

2026-10-05

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 28 spots (#865 → #893)

2026-10-03

Rank Moved

Rank rose 42 spots (#906 → #864)

2026-09-25

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 23 spots (#864 → #887)

2026-09-24

Rank Moved

Rank rose 36 spots (#900 → #864)

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 36 spots (#864 → #900)

2026-09-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 23.6pts (27.5 → 51.1)

2026-09-22

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #864

2026-09-21

Removed From Active Tracking

Removed from active tracking

2026-09-16

Rank Moved

Rank rose 39 spots (#919 → #880)

2026-09-16

Activity Score Changed

Activity score up 8pts (41 → 49)

2026-09-15

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

2026-09-15

Rank Moved

Rank rose 333 spots (#1252 → #919)

2026-09-15

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 15.9pts (34.3 → 50.2)

2026-09-14

Grade Changed

Trust grade C → D

2026-09-14

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 348 spots (#904 → #1252)

2026-09-14

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust down 16.6pts (50.9 → 34.3)

2026-09-11

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 36 spots (#862 → #898)

2026-09-10

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

2026-09-10

Rank Moved

Rank rose 378 spots (#1240 → #862)

2026-09-10

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 17.1pts (34.5 → 51.6)

2026-09-09

Grade Changed

Trust grade C → D

2026-09-09

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 382 spots (#858 → #1240)

2026-09-09

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust down 16.8pts (51.3 → 34.5)

2026-09-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 43 spots (#807 → #850)

2026-09-06

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 13 spots (#794 → #807)

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 55 spots (#739 → #794)

2026-09-04

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 32 spots (#707 → #739)

2026-09-03

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 51 spots (#656 → #707)

2026-09-02

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 24 spots (#632 → #656)

2026-09-01

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 25 spots (#607 → #632)

2026-08-31

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 31 spots (#576 → #607)

2026-08-29

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 33 spots (#537 → #570)

2026-08-27

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 14 spots (#515 → #529)

2026-08-26

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 5.7/10

2026-08-26

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

2026-08-26

Rank Moved

Rank rose 519 spots (#1034 → #515)

2026-08-26

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 31.5pts (20.8 → 52.3)

2026-08-20

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#1024 → #1035)

2026-08-19

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#1014 → #1024)

2026-08-16

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 19 spots (#997 → #1016)

2026-08-14

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 22 spots (#977 → #999)

2026-08-13

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#966 → #977)

GitHub → Website →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/codealive-mcp.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/codealive-mcp)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/codealive-mcp"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/codealive-mcp.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

Data sources
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

Codealive MCP

How Codealive MCP could raise its score

Chain of custody

Source Partly signed

Review and release Mixed

Published packages None

Changes to this chain

Evidence behind this score

Verify this score yourself

What this score doesn’t check

How Codealive MCP compares in MCP Servers

Where the 45.9 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

Quick Trust Read

Rank Trend

Activity & Reach

Analysis

Activity Inputs

Common questions about Codealive MCP

AI agent surface

Maintain Codealive MCP?

Reputation Timeline

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

Other agents in MCP Servers