Is GPTMe safe to use?

GPTMe has an HVTrust score of 72.0/100 (Grade B), ranked #301 of 1371 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for GPTMe?

GPTMe scores 72.0/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 4.4k GitHub stars and is categorized under Coding Agents.

GPTMe

Repository Website

Your agent in your terminal, equipped with local tools: writes code, uses the terminal, browses the web. Make your own persistent autonomous agent on top!

Coding Agents Python Listed MIT

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

OSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10

Provenance None

Signed commits 100%

Last push today

Advisories None known

Compare GPTMe

How does it stack up against its Coding Agents neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: GPTMe scores 72.0/100 (Grade B), ranked #301 of 1371 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 6.0/10; 100% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (gptme); last pushed 2026-10-09. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How GPTMe 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.

Publish build provenance for its packagesPyPI Trusted Publishing attestations +13.0 → 85.0 A · #8 of 77
Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 6.0 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Fuzzing 0, SAST 0 +6.2 → 78.2 B · #10 of 77

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

Chain of custody

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

Source Signed

github.com/gptme/gptme, MIT, last pushed 2026-10-09. 100% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature, so changes trace to a verified account.
Review and release Mixed

OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 6.0/10 (scanned Oct 8, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review7
- Branch Protection3
- Signed Releases8
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies1
All 18 Scorecard checks

Binary-Artifacts 9

Branch-Protection 3

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 7

Contributors 10

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 10

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 10

Packaging 10

Pinned-Dependencies 1

SAST 0

Security-Policy 10

Signed-Releases 8

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 0
Published packages Linked, not attested
- PyPI gptme Source link points back to this repo No build attestation
Without a build attestation, nothing proves the published files were built from this repository.
What you install today No known advisories

Latest release checked: gptme 0.34.0. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-10-09).

Changes to this chain

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

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 GPTMe’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 GPTMe compares in Coding Agents

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks GPTMe’s 72.0.

Where the 72.0 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the Coding Agents average

72.0 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

GPTMe Coding Agents average (77 agents)

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

12.5 / 25

3.7 above avg 8.8

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

0.9 below avg 11.7

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

13.6 / 17

2.0 above avg 11.6

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

20.0 / 20

5.6 above avg 14.4

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

14.0 / 20

2.1 above avg 11.9

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

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

Recent Changes

2026-10-06

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 26 spots (#268 → #294)

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Groq

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 164 spots (#104 → #268)

Maintainer Checklist

Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 6.0/10. 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.

Compare with another agent Get email alerts for GPTMe View Coding Agents Report missing data

84.2

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#14

In Coding Agents

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

2026-09-29 2026-10-09

Activity & Reach

Stars

4.4k

Forks

448

Last Push

2026-10-09

today

Commits (4 wk)

355

Downloads (7d)

8,677

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

Open Issues

Rank Change

▼2

was #299

Analysis

Activity Inputs

84.2 / 100

StarsRepository reach

21.9 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

25.0 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

25 / 25

CommunityFork signal

12.3 / 20

Common questions about GPTMe

GPTMe 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 GPTMe publish package provenance?

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

Does GPTMe have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

GPTMe has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.0/10. 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 GPTMe actively maintained?

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

What license does GPTMe use?

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

Are GPTMe's commits signed?

100% of the last 100 commits to GPTMe 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

high confidence

Implemented

GPTMe appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

high confidence

7 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.

Tool / Plugin Surface

high confidence

Declared

Declared plugin/integration surface detected.

browser
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 GPTMe'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.

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Groq

Maintain GPTMe?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores GPTMe 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

2026-10-06

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 26 spots (#268 → #294)

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Groq

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 164 spots (#104 → #268)

2026-09-21

Rank Moved

Rank rose 167 spots (#271 → #104)

2026-09-11

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#251 → #261)

2026-09-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#235 → #245)

2026-09-07

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#224 → #235)

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 51 spots (#171 → #222)

2026-09-03

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#161 → #172)

2026-08-31

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 15 spots (#137 → #152)

2026-08-26

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 14 spots (#115 → #129)

2026-08-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 14 spots (#100 → #114)

2026-07-13

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 11 spots (#83 → #94)

GitHub → Website → PyPI: gptme

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

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

Other agents in Coding Agents

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

GPTMe

How GPTMe could raise its score

Chain of custody

Source Signed

Review and release Mixed

Published packages Linked, not attested

What you install today No known advisories

Changes to this chain

Evidence behind this score

Verify this score yourself

What this score doesn’t check

How GPTMe compares in Coding Agents

Where the 72.0 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the Coding Agents average

Quick Trust Read

Rank Trend

Activity & Reach

Analysis

Activity Inputs

Common questions about GPTMe

AI agent surface

Maintain GPTMe?

Reputation Timeline

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

Other agents in Coding Agents