Is Codex safe?
Codex scores 93.7/100 (Grade A), ranked #3 of 328 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: its packages ship with cryptographic provenance;
OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 6.3/10;
100% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-07-11. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.
93.7/100 · Grade A
Strongest Signal
Identity / Provenance
18.0/18
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
20.4/25
What Would Improve It
Improve safety / integrity to lift the weakest part of the trust profile.
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 6.3/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade A reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Evidence coverage B is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (3 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-07-11 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed today
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
97.0k
Forks
14.4k
Last Push
2026-07-11
today
Commits (4 wk)
793
Downloads (7d)
10,929,573
npm+pypi
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
8551
Rank Change
=
was #3
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
93.7 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
20.4 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
18.0 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
13.9 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
20.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
20.0 / 20
Activity Inputs
99.2 / 100
StarsRepository reach
29.9 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
19.3 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
Verified
npm, pypi attestation
OSSF Scorecard
6.3 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
100%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection4
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review4
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies8
SAST0
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases8
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is Codex safe?
Public supply-chain signals for Codex are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but Codex carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.
Does Codex publish package provenance?
Yes. Codex's package releases carry build provenance attestations, which cryptographically link the published package back to its source repository and CI workflow.
Does Codex have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Codex has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.3/10. 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 Codex actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does Codex use?
Codex ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Codex's commits signed?
100% of the last 100 commits to Codex 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.
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
Codex appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
code
shell
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
high confidence
Match
Published package metadata matches the tracked repo
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 Codex'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.
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: OpenAI
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
2026-05-30
Provenance Added
Package provenance attestation detected
Maintain Codex?
HVTrust scores Codex 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.
