Is Gemini CLI safe?
Gemini CLI scores 75.8/100 (Grade B), ranked #56 of 328 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 4.8/10;
100% 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
Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.
75.8/100 · Grade B
Strongest Signal
Adoption
19.8/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
11.0/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-06-15
Rank Moved
Rank rose 10 spots (#65 → #55)
2026-06-15
Activity Score Changed
Activity score up 6pts (93 → 99)
2026-06-14
Activity Score Changed
Activity score down 5pts (98 → 93)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 4.8/10. 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.
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 refreshed2026-07-11 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed today
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
105.9k
Forks
14.2k
Last Push
2026-07-11
today
Commits (4 wk)
48
Downloads (7d)
594,518
npm
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
1166
Rank Change
=
was #56
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
75.8 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
11.0 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
12.6 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
18.7 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
19.8 / 20
Activity Inputs
95.4 / 100
StarsRepository reach
30 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
21.1 / 25
CommunityFork signal
19.3 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
4.8 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
100%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts5
Branch-Protection0
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review10
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow0
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained10
Packaging-1
Pinned-Dependencies8
SAST10
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases0
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is Gemini CLI safe?
Public supply-chain signals for Gemini CLI are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but Gemini CLI carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.
Does Gemini CLI publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Gemini CLI. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Gemini CLI have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Gemini CLI has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 4.8/10. 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 Gemini CLI actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does Gemini CLI use?
Gemini CLI ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Gemini CLI's commits signed?
100% of the last 100 commits to Gemini CLI 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
high confidence
Implemented
Gemini CLI appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
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
filesystem
search
shell
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
How this surface has changed
Detected changes to Gemini CLI'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 dependency: Google Gemini
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
Maintain Gemini CLI?
HVTrust scores Gemini CLI 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.
Action counts reflect activity on public repos where this agent left detectable fingerprints.
Private repo usage is invisible. Counts are approximate (GitHub Search API caps at 1,000 results per query).
Methodology described in the Provenance Profile spec.
