updated 2026-10-17 20:06 UTC

FAISS

Repository Website by facebookresearch

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

Memory & Knowledge C++ Listed MIT

Is FAISS safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.

OSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
Provenance None
Signed commits 0%
Last push yesterday
Advisories None known
Compare FAISS

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

Pick any agent to compare →
Suggest a correction

In detail: FAISS scores 74.9/100 (Grade B), ranked #252 of 1378 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; no published advisory affects its latest release (faiss-cpu); last pushed 2026-10-16. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How FAISS 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.

Already done? Suggest a correctionAdd the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships FAISS 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.

  1. Source Unsigned

    github.com/facebookresearch/faiss, MIT, last pushed 2026-10-16. None of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature, so no change traces to a verified identity.

  2. Review and release Mixed

    OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 6.1/10 (scanned Oct 17, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:

    • Code Review9
    • Branch Protection3
    • Signed Releasesn/a
    • Dangerous Workflow10
    • Token Permissions0
    • Pinned Dependencies3
    All 14 Scorecard checks
    Binary-Artifacts 10
    Branch-Protection 3
    CII-Best-Practices 0
    Code-Review 9
    Dangerous-Workflow 10
    Fuzzing 0
    License 10
    Maintained 10
    Packaging 10
    Pinned-Dependencies 3
    SAST 0
    Security-Policy 9
    Signed-Releases -1
    Token-Permissions 0

  3. Published packages Linked, not attested

    • PyPI faiss-cpu Source link points back to this repo No build attestation

    Without a build attestation, nothing proves the published files were built from this repository.

  4. What you install today No known advisories

    Latest release checked: faiss-cpu 1.15.1. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-10-17).

Changes to this chain

No change to package provenance, package source links, Scorecard coverage or license in HVTracker's daily snapshots of FAISS.

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 FAISS’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.

Signed credential (JSON) How to verify

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 FAISS compares in Memory & Knowledge

  1. #11 agentmemory 76.3 +1.4
  2. #12 Qdrant 76.1 +1.2
  3. #13 FAISS 74.9 this agent
  4. #14 RAGFlow 74.7 −0.2
  5. #15 Honcho 73.7 −1.2

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks FAISS’s 74.9.

Where the 74.9 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the Memory & Knowledge average

74.9 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

FAISS Memory & Knowledge average (51 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
7.6 / 25
3.8 below avg 11.4
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
1.7 below avg 12.5
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
13.7 / 17
0.8 above avg 12.9
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
19.1 / 20
2.1 above avg 17.0
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
19.7 / 20
6.6 above avg 13.1

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-09-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 138 spots (#93 → #231)
2026-09-21
Rank Moved
Rank rose 145 spots (#237 → #92)
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 another agent Get email alerts for FAISS View Memory & Knowledge Report missing data
92.0
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#13
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 →

Signals refreshed 2026-10-17 20:06 UTC · Repo last pushed yesterday

Rank Trend

2026-09-29 2026-10-17

Activity & Reach

Stars
41.2k
Forks
4.6k
Last Push
2026-10-16
yesterday
Commits (4 wk)
61
Downloads (7d)
2,843,097
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
33
Open Issues
232
Rank Change
▼1
was #251

Analysis

Activity Inputs

92.0 / 100
StarsRepository reach
27.7 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.9 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
22.4 / 25
CommunityFork signal
17.0 / 20

Common questions about FAISS

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.

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
Rank 6
2026-09-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 138 spots (#93 → #231)
2026-09-21
Rank Moved
Rank rose 145 spots (#237 → #92)
2026-09-07
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 14 spots (#216 → #230)
2026-09-05
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 51 spots (#162 → #213)
2026-08-31
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 17 spots (#126 → #143)
2026-08-26
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 13 spots (#96 → #109)
GitHub → Website → PyPI: faiss-cpu

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 74.9 Grade B
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 v4.4 · Raw JSON