Graft
Website
Turbocharge Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini & every coding agent: faster, cheaper, with contextual understanding specific to your codebase.
Is Graft safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
Compare Graft
How does it stack up against its Protocols & Tool Integration neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: Graft scores 65.3/100 (Grade B), ranked #486 of 1371 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 7.1/10; 67% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-10-10. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How Graft 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.
- Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 7.1 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0, Contributors 0 +4.0 → 69.3 B · #15 of 62
- Sign every commit67% signed today +1.7 → 67.0 B · #23 of 62
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Graft and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the code you run. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.
-
Source Partly signed
github.com/trailhq/Graft, MIT, last pushed 2026-10-10. 67% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
-
Review and release Strong
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 7.1/10 (scanned Oct 10, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection3
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions10
- Pinned Dependencies8
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 3CI-Tests 10CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 0Contributors 0Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 10Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 10Packaging -1Pinned-Dependencies 8SAST 9Security-Policy 10Signed-Releases -1Token-Permissions 10Vulnerabilities 7 -
Published packages None
No registry package. Graft is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.
Changes to this chain
No change to package provenance, package source links, Scorecard coverage or license in HVTracker's daily snapshots of Graft.
Evidence behind this score
Coverage C: 2 of 5 independent evidence types found.
- GitHub repository data
- Package downloads (missing)
- Supply-chain checks
- Public actions (missing)
- Community mentions (missing)
Verify this score yourself
Every build re-issues Graft’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.
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 Graft compares in Protocols & Tool Integration
- #24 Agent Gateway 65.5 +0.2
- #25 MCP Go 65.5 +0.2
- #26 Graft 65.3 this agent
- #27 AG-UI 65.1 −0.2
- #28 arcade-mcp 65.0 −0.3
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Graft’s 65.3.
Where the 65.3 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Protocols & Tool Integration average
65.3 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceGraft Protocols & Tool Integration average (62 agents)
Quick Trust Read
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 C is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (2 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Rank Trend
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
82.0 / 100Common questions about Graft
Does Graft publish package provenance?
Does Graft have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is Graft actively maintained?
What license does Graft use?
Are Graft's commits signed?
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
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 signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Detected changes to Graft'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.
Maintain Graft?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores Graft 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.
Reputation Timeline
Signal history
Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →
For maintainers
[](https://hvtracker.net/agents/graft)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/graft"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/graft.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Protocols & Tool Integration
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON