Is Giskard safe?
Giskard scores 70.0/100 (Grade B), ranked #85 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 7.0/10;
84% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-07-10. 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.
70.0/100 · Grade B
Strongest Signal
Maintenance
18.5/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
13.0/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Maintainer Checklist
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 05:00 UTC·Repo last pushed yesterday
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
5.5k
Forks
485
Last Push
2026-07-10
yesterday
Commits (4 wk)
42
Downloads (7d)
6,541
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
1
Open Issues
28
Rank Change
▼1
was #84
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
70.0 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
13.0 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
14.4 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
18.5 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
14.1 / 20
Activity Inputs
80.3 / 100
StarsRepository reach
22.4 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.9 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
20.4 / 25
CommunityFork signal
12.5 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
7.0 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
84%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection8
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review8
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow0
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained10
Packaging-1
Pinned-Dependencies10
SAST10
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases0
Token-Permissions10
Vulnerabilities8
Is Giskard safe?
Giskard 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 Giskard publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Giskard. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Giskard have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Giskard has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 7.0/10. 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 Giskard actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does Giskard use?
Giskard ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Giskard's commits signed?
84% of the last 100 commits to Giskard 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
None detected
No MCP server signal detected.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
medium confidence
1 tags
Broad capability areas detected.
code
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 Giskard'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.
2026-06-05
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependencies: Anthropic, OpenAI
Maintain Giskard?
HVTrust scores Giskard 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.
