updated 2026-08-09 19:31 UTC

Container Use

dagger/container-use

Development environments for coding agents. Enable multiple agents to work safely and independently with your preferred

Sandboxes & Runtimes Go Grade C Listed Apache-2.0
52.2/100
Rank #421 of 1204
Compare Container Use

How does it stack up against its Sandboxes & Runtimes neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

Open compare tool Suggest correction
Listing state
Listed
Evidence coverage
Grade C · 2/5 signals
Last push
2026-06-12 · 58d ago
Recent change
Rank

Is Container Use safe? Container Use scores 52.2/100 (Grade C), ranked #421 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 4.4/10; 99% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-06-12. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in Sandboxes & Runtimes

#2 E2B — 75.5 (B) → #3 Daytona — 67.0 (B) → #5 Agent Infra Sandbox — 50.3 (C) → #6 OpenSandbox — 47.6 (D) →

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 105 spots (#312 → #417)
2026-07-15
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 4.4/10
2026-07-15
Grade Changed
Trust grade D → C
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 4.4/10. 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.
Refresh maintenance signals The repo was last pushed 58 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.
Compare with BoxLite Get email alerts for Container Use View Sandboxes & Runtimes Report missing data
49.4
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#4
In Sandboxes & Runtimes

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

Signals refreshed 2026-08-09 19:31 UTC · Repo last pushed 58 days ago

Activity & Reach

Stars
4.0k
Forks
203
Last Push
2026-06-12
58 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
48
Rank Change
▼4
was #417

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs Sandboxes & Runtimes

52.2 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Container Use Sandboxes & Runtimes average (9 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
10.5 / 25
in line with avg 10.9
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
0.8 below avg 11.6
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
12.2 / 17
0.5 below avg 12.7
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
8.1 / 20
6.3 below avg 14.4
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
8.6 / 20
3.0 below avg 11.6

Activity Inputs

49.4 / 100
StarsRepository reach
21.6 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
16.9 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
10.7 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
4.4 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Aug 9, 2026
Signed Commits
99%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts 10
Branch-Protection 6
CI-Tests 9
CII-Best-Practices 0
Code-Review 10
Contributors 10
Dangerous-Workflow 10
Dependency-Update-Tool 10
Fuzzing 0
License 10
Maintained 0
Packaging -1
Pinned-Dependencies 0
SAST 0
Security-Policy 0
Signed-Releases 0
Token-Permissions 0
Vulnerabilities 0

Is Container Use safe?

Public trust evidence for Container Use 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 Container Use publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Container Use. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Container Use have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Container Use has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 4.4/10. 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 Container Use actively maintained?
Slowing down. Last push was 58 days ago — keep an eye on whether activity resumes.
What license does Container Use use?
Container Use ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Container Use's commits signed?
99% of the last 100 commits to Container Use 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.

Compare Container Use head-to-head

Container Use vs BoxLite → Container Use vs E2B → Container Use vs Daytona →

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
medium confidence
Implemented
Container Use appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
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
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

Maintain Container Use?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Container Use 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
Rank 2Listed 1HVTrust 1Grade 1Scorecard 1
2026-08-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 105 spots (#312 → #417)
2026-07-15
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 4.4/10
2026-07-15
Grade Changed
Trust grade D → C
2026-07-15
Rank Moved
Rank rose 126 spots (#396 → #270)
2026-07-15
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 30.5pts (23.4 → 53.9)
2026-07-14
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #396
GitHub →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 52.2 Grade C
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/container-use.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/container-use)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/container-use"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/container-use.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in Sandboxes & Runtimes

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