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 D is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (1 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-07-07 22:30 UTC·Repo last pushed today
Activity & Reach
Stars
45.9k
Forks
10.3k
Last Push
2026-07-07
today
Commits (4 wk)
175
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
21
Rank Change
NEW
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
24.5 / 100 · 50.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
0.4 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
8.5 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
20.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
11.2 / 20
Activity Inputs
96.7 / 100
StarsRepository reach
28.0 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
18.7 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
—
Not available
Signed Commits
8%
of last 100 commits verified
Is CowAgent safe?
Public trust evidence for CowAgent 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 CowAgent publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for CowAgent. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does CowAgent have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for CowAgent. Maintainers can enable the Scorecard GitHub Action to get a public score; without it, automated supply-chain hygiene is harder for outsiders to verify.
Is CowAgent actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does CowAgent use?
CowAgent ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are CowAgent's commits signed?
8% of the last 100 commits to CowAgent 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
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 →
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
medium confidence
Marketplace
Marketplace 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
Maintain CowAgent?
HVTrust scores CowAgent 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.
Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.2 · Raw JSON
