Is Conductor safe to use?

Conductor has an HVTrust score of 65.3/100 (Grade B), ranked #208 of 1204 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Conductor?

Conductor scores 65.3/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 32.1k GitHub stars and is categorized under Workflow Platforms.

Conductor

conductor-oss/conductor

Conductor is an event driven agentic workflow engine providing durable and highly resilient execution engine for applica

Workflow Platforms Java Grade B Listed Apache-2.0

65.3/100

Rank #208 of 1204

Compare Conductor

How does it stack up against its Workflow Platforms neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.

Open compare tool Suggest correction

Listing state

Listed

Evidence coverage

Grade C · 2/5 signals

Last push

2026-08-07 · 2d ago

Recent change

Rank +3

Is Conductor safe? Conductor scores 65.3/100 (Grade B), ranked #208 of 1204 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 5.5/10; 86% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-07. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in Workflow Platforms

#9 Nocobase — 66.4 (B) → #10 Sim — 65.3 (B) → #12 Hatchet — 65.2 (B) → #13 Budibase — 63.1 (C) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

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

Recent Changes

2026-08-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 40 spots (#167 → #207)

2026-08-07

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: marketplace → extension-based

2026-08-07

Provider Removed

Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, E2B, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Postgres, Redis

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 5.5/10. 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.

Compare with another agent Get email alerts for Conductor View Workflow Platforms Report missing data

90.8

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#11

In Workflow Platforms

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade B 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 →

Activity & Reach

Stars

32.1k

Forks

982

Last Push

2026-08-07

2 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

198

Downloads (7d)

—

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

151

Rank Change

▼1

was #207

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs Workflow Platforms

65.3 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Conductor Workflow Platforms average (24 agents)

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

11.2 / 25

0.9 above avg 10.3

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

0.9 below avg 11.7

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

13.2 / 17

0.8 above avg 12.4

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

19.9 / 20

1.7 above avg 18.2

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

10.8 / 20

2.0 below avg 12.8

Activity Inputs

90.8 / 100

StarsRepository reach

27.0 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

24.7 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

25 / 25

CommunityFork signal

13.9 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

5.5 / 10

OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Aug 9, 2026

Signed Commits

86%

of last 100 commits verified

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 8

CI-Tests 9

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 10

Contributors 10

Dangerous-Workflow 0

Dependency-Update-Tool 10

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 10

Packaging 10

Pinned-Dependencies 0

SAST 0

Security-Policy 10

Signed-Releases -1

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 0

Is Conductor safe?

Conductor has a mixed signal profile. Some trust indicators are present, others are missing. Whether it is safe for your use case depends on which gaps matter to you — review the breakdown below before adopting in production.

Does Conductor publish package provenance?

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

Does Conductor have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

Conductor has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.5/10. 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 Conductor actively maintained?

Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 2 day(s).

What license does Conductor use?

Conductor ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are Conductor's commits signed?

86% of the last 100 commits to Conductor 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

low confidence

Declared

MCP support appears present, but direct server implementation is less certain.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

None detected

No clear third-party provider dependency detected.

Credential signal: No explicit API-key/config marker detected.

Tool / Plugin Surface

high confidence

Extensions

Extension based plugin/integration 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 Conductor'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.

2026-08-07

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: marketplace → extension-based

2026-08-07

Provider Removed

Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, E2B, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Postgres, Redis

Maintain Conductor?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Conductor 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

2026-08-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 40 spots (#167 → #207)

2026-08-07

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: marketplace → extension-based

2026-08-07

Provider Removed

Runtime surface shrank — no longer detected: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, E2B, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Postgres, Redis

2026-08-06

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 29 spots (#181 → #210)

2026-07-15

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#171 → #181)

2026-07-13

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 21 spots (#152 → #173)

2026-07-06

Rank Moved

Rank rose 10 spots (#153 → #143)

2026-06-24

Grade Changed

Trust grade C → B

2026-06-23

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 5.9/10

2026-06-23

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → C

2026-06-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 134 spots (#261 → #127)

2026-06-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 38.8pts (26.0 → 64.8)

2026-06-21

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #254

GitHub →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

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

Other agents in Workflow Platforms

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 v4.2 · Raw JSON