Is Eliza safe?
Eliza scores 61.5/100 (Grade C), ranked #151 of 328 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found;
OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 5.0/10;
16% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-07-11. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
61.5/100 · Grade C
Strongest Signal
Maintenance
20.0/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
7.1/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-06-29
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 18 spots (#101 → #119)
2026-06-25
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 5.1/10
2026-06-25
Grade Changed
Trust grade D → B
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 5.0/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Publish provenanceAdd package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
Increase signed commitsRaise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
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 B is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (3 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-07-11 05:00 UTC·Repo last pushed today
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
18.7k
Forks
5.6k
Last Push
2026-07-11
today
Commits (4 wk)
9765
Downloads (7d)
18,459
npm
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
177
Rank Change
▼1
was #150
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
61.5 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
7.1 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
12.8 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
20.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
15.9 / 20
Activity Inputs
93.0 / 100
StarsRepository reach
25.6 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
17.4 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
5.0 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 11, 2026
Signed Commits
16%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts0
Branch-Protection0
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review1
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing10
License10
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies2
SAST7
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases0
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is Eliza safe?
Eliza 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 Eliza publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Eliza. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Eliza have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Eliza has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.0/10. 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 Eliza actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does Eliza use?
Eliza ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Eliza's commits signed?
16% of the last 100 commits to Eliza 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
medium confidence
Declared
MCP support appears present, but direct server implementation is less certain.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Extensions
Extension based plugin/integration surface detected.
browser
code
database
filesystem
shell
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 Eliza'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, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Postgres, Supabase
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → declared
Maintain Eliza?
HVTrust scores Eliza 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.
