Is ControlFlow safe?
ControlFlow scores 53.9/100 (Grade C), ranked #213 of 328 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage A (4 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: its packages ship with cryptographic provenance;
OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 4.1/10;
29% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2025-08-22. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Active listing, but review is needed
[5.1] repository is archived
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
53.9/100 · Grade C
Strongest Signal
Identity / Provenance
18.0/18
Weakest Signal
Maintenance
0/20
What Would Improve It
Increase the share of verified signed commits for clearer maintainer identity.
Recent Changes
2026-06-24
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 4.1/10
2026-06-24
Grade Changed
Trust grade D → C
2026-06-24
Rank Moved
Rank rose 13 spots (#215 → #202)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 4.1/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Increase signed commitsRaise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
Refresh maintenance signalsThe repo was last pushed 323 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.
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 A is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (4 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-07-11 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed 323 days ago — may be stale
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
1.4k
Forks
114
Last Push
2025-08-22
323 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
1,703
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
1
Open Issues
35
Rank Change
=
was #213
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
53.9 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
14.1 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
18.0 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
12.0 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
0.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
11.9 / 20
Activity Inputs
28.5 / 100
StarsRepository reach
18.9 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
0.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
9.6 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
Verified
pypi attestation
OSSF Scorecard
4.1 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 8, 2026
Signed Commits
29%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection1
CI-Tests1
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review6
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool0
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained0
Packaging-1
Pinned-Dependencies0
SAST7
Security-Policy0
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions8
Vulnerabilities0
Is ControlFlow safe?
Public trust evidence for ControlFlow 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 ControlFlow publish package provenance?
Yes. ControlFlow's package releases carry build provenance attestations, which cryptographically link the published package back to its source repository and CI workflow.
Does ControlFlow have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
ControlFlow has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 4.1/10. 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 ControlFlow actively maintained?
Stale. The repository has not been pushed to in 323 days. Consider whether the project is still being maintained.
What license does ControlFlow use?
ControlFlow ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are ControlFlow's commits signed?
28% of the last 100 commits to ControlFlow 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
None detected
No MCP server signal detected.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
code
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
low confidence
Unknown
Package source metadata is missing or inconclusive
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 ControlFlow'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 dependencies: Anthropic, OpenAI
Maintain ControlFlow?
HVTrust scores ControlFlow 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.
