ControlFlow
🦾 Take control of your AI agents
Is ControlFlow safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare ControlFlow
How does it stack up against its Agent Frameworks neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: ControlFlow scores 44.8/100 (Grade D), ranked #1088 of 1371 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; no published advisory affects its latest release (controlflow); last pushed 2025-08-22. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How ControlFlow 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 4.1 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Dependency-Update-Tool 0, Fuzzing 0 +10.2 → 55.0 C · #76 of 129
- Sign every commit29% signed today +3.5 → 48.3 D · #92 of 129
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships ControlFlow and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the package you install. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.
-
Source Partly signed
github.com/prefect-archive/ControlFlow, Apache-2.0, last pushed 2025-08-22. 29% 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 4.1/10 (scanned Sep 27, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review6
- Branch Protection1
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions8
- Pinned Dependencies0
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 1CI-Tests 1CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 6Contributors 10Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 0Packaging -1Pinned-Dependencies 0SAST 7Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases -1Token-Permissions 8Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages Partly attested
- PyPI controlflow Source link isn't a GitHub repo Build provenance attested
-
What you install today No known advisories
Latest release checked: controlflow 0.12.1. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-10-09).
Changes to this chain
No change to package provenance, package source links, Scorecard coverage or license in HVTracker's daily snapshots of ControlFlow.
Evidence behind this score
Coverage A: 4 of 5 independent evidence types found.
- GitHub repository data
- Package downloads
- Supply-chain checks
- Public actions (missing)
- Community mentions
Verify this score yourself
Every build re-issues ControlFlow’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.
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 ControlFlow compares in Agent Frameworks
- #96 nuwax 45.3 +0.5
- #97 EnterpriseAgentFramework 45.2 +0.4
- #98 ControlFlow 44.8 this agent
- #99 agentUniverse 44.6 −0.2
- #100 Fedml 44.4 −0.4
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks ControlFlow’s 44.8.
Where the 44.8 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Agent Frameworks average
44.8 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceControlFlow Agent Frameworks average (129 agents)
Quick Trust Read
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 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 →
Rank Trend
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
28.4 / 100Common questions about ControlFlow
Does ControlFlow publish package provenance?
Does ControlFlow have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is ControlFlow actively maintained?
What license does ControlFlow use?
Are ControlFlow's commits signed?
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
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 signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Maintain ControlFlow?
For maintainers
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.
Reputation Timeline
Signal history
Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →
For maintainers
[](https://hvtracker.net/agents/controlflow)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/controlflow"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/controlflow.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Agent Frameworks
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · PyPI / pypistats (downloads, provenance) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI · Algolia HN Search API
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON