Is GPT Pilot safe?
GPT Pilot scores 46.0/100 (Grade D), ranked #257 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 2.5/10;
recent commits are unsigned;
last pushed 2026-06-18. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
46.0/100 · Grade D
Strongest Signal
Adoption
12.7/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
3.1/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-06-24
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 29 spots (#202 → #231)
2026-06-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 13 spots (#189 → #202)
2026-06-21
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 10 spots (#170 → #180)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 2.5/10. 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 D 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 23 days ago
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
33.7k
Forks
3.5k
Last Push
2026-06-18
23 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
2?
Downloads (7d)
21
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
2
Open Issues
244
Rank Change
▼1
was #256
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
46.0 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
3.1 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
10.6 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
11.4 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
12.7 / 20
Activity Inputs
71.6 / 100
StarsRepository reach
27.2 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
21.8 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
6.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
16.5 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
2.5 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jun 28, 2026
Signed Commits
—
Unable to query
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection0
CI-Tests0
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review0
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool0
Fuzzing0
License9
Maintained1
Packaging-1
Pinned-Dependencies0
SAST0
Security-Policy0
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is GPT Pilot safe?
Source-available software. A lower HVTrust score reflects fewer public supply-chain artifacts (open license, build provenance, signed commits) — not a security finding. GPT Pilot may have internal security practices not visible through public signals.
Public trust evidence for GPT Pilot is thin: several supply-chain signals are missing or weak. This does not mean the project is unsafe — it means an outside observer cannot easily verify the usual integrity checks. Treat with extra scrutiny.
Does GPT Pilot publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for GPT Pilot. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does GPT Pilot have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
GPT Pilot has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 2.5/10. 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 GPT Pilot actively maintained?
Maintained. Last push was 23 days ago.
What license does GPT Pilot use?
GPT Pilot ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
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
high confidence
Marketplace
Marketplace plugin/integration surface detected.
code
database
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 GPT Pilot'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.
HVTrust scores GPT Pilot 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.
