Is FAISS safe to use?

FAISS has an HVTrust score of 74.9/100 (Grade B), ranked #95 of 1308 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for FAISS?

FAISS scores 74.9/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 40.8k GitHub stars and is categorized under Memory & Knowledge.

FAISS

facebookresearch/faiss

A library for efficient similarity search and clustering of dense vectors.

Memory & Knowledge C++ Grade B Listed MIT

74.9/100

Rank #95 of 1308

Compare FAISS

How does it stack up against its Memory & Knowledge neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.

Open compare tool Suggest correction

Listing state

Listed

Evidence coverage

Grade A · 4/5 signals

Last push

2026-08-18 · 1d ago

Recent change

No recent signal change

Is FAISS safe? FAISS scores 74.9/100 (Grade B), ranked #95 of 1308 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage A (4 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 6.1/10; recent commits are unsigned; last pushed 2026-08-18. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in Memory & Knowledge

#6 Hindsight — 83.1 (A) → #7 ReMe — 75.3 (B) → #9 Weaviate — 74.7 (B) → #10 Chroma — 74.5 (B) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 6.1/10. 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.

Increase signed commits Raise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.

Compare with Vespa Get email alerts for FAISS View Memory & Knowledge Report missing data

91.7

Activity sub-score · out of 100

In Memory & Knowledge

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

2026-08-11 2026-08-19

Activity & Reach

Stars

40.8k

Forks

4.5k

Last Push

2026-08-18

yesterday

Commits (4 wk)

Downloads (7d)

3,852,879

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

Open Issues

215

Rank Change

▼6

was #89

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs Memory & Knowledge

74.9 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

FAISS Memory & Knowledge average (44 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits

7.6 / 25

2.3 below avg 9.9

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

1.3 below avg 12.1

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

13.7 / 17

1.3 above avg 12.4

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

19.0 / 20

1.3 above avg 17.7

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

19.8 / 20

6.2 above avg 13.6

Activity Inputs

91.7 / 100

StarsRepository reach

27.7 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

24.9 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

22.1 / 25

CommunityFork signal

17.0 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

6.1 / 10

OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Aug 18, 2026

Signed Commits

of last 100 commits verified

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 3

CI-Tests -1

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 9

Contributors 10

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 0

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 10

Packaging 10

Pinned-Dependencies 3

SAST 0

Security-Policy 9

Signed-Releases -1

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 10

Is FAISS safe?

FAISS 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 FAISS publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for FAISS. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.

Does FAISS have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

FAISS has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.1/10. 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 FAISS actively maintained?

Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).

What license does FAISS use?

FAISS ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are FAISS's commits signed?

0% of the last 100 commits to FAISS 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 FAISS head-to-head

FAISS vs Vespa → FAISS vs LanceDB → FAISS vs Mem0 →

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

None detected

No MCP server signal detected.

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

high confidence

Match

Published package metadata matches the tracked repo

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

MCP signal live
External deps live
Tool / plugin surface live
Package provenance drift live

Maintain FAISS?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores FAISS 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

2026-06-03

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → B

2026-06-03

Rank Moved

Rank rose 86 spots (#145 → #59)

2026-06-03

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 24.5pts (47.0 → 71.5)

2026-06-02

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #145

GitHub → PyPI: faiss-cpu

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/faiss.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/faiss)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/faiss"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/faiss.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in Memory & Knowledge

Data sources
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 v4.3 · Raw JSON