updated 2026-10-09 16:07 UTC

Guardrails AI

Repository Website

Adding guardrails to large language models.

Security & Guardrails Python Listed Apache-2.0

Is Guardrails AI safe? Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.

OSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
Provenance Attested
Signed commits 100%
Last push today
Compare Guardrails AI

How does it stack up against its Security & Guardrails neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →
Suggest a correction

In detail: Guardrails AI scores 76.7/100 (Grade B), ranked #212 of 1371 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage A (4 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: its packages ship with cryptographic provenance; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 6.0/10; 100% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-10-09. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Guardrails AI 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.

Already done? Suggest a correctionAdd the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Guardrails AI 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.

  1. Source Signed

    github.com/guardrails-ai/guardrails, Apache-2.0, last pushed 2026-10-09. 100% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature, so changes trace to a verified account.

  2. Review and release Mixed

    OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 6.0/10 (scanned Oct 7, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:

    • Code Review10
    • Branch Protection5
    • Signed Releasesn/a
    • Dangerous Workflow10
    • Token Permissions0
    • Pinned Dependencies4
    All 18 Scorecard checks
    Binary-Artifacts 10
    Branch-Protection 5
    CI-Tests 10
    CII-Best-Practices 0
    Code-Review 10
    Contributors 10
    Dangerous-Workflow 10
    Dependency-Update-Tool 10
    Fuzzing 0
    License 10
    Maintained 10
    Packaging 10
    Pinned-Dependencies 4
    SAST 0
    Security-Policy 0
    Signed-Releases -1
    Token-Permissions 0
    Vulnerabilities 0

  3. Published packages Partly attested

    • PyPI guardrails-ai Source link isn't a GitHub repo Build provenance attested

Changes to this chain

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

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 Guardrails AI’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 Guardrails AI compares in Security & Guardrails

  1. #3 AiSOC 84.9 +8.2
  2. #4 DvalinCode 83.3 +6.6
  3. #5 Guardrails AI 76.7 this agent
  4. #6 NeMo Guardrails 73.1 −3.6
  5. #7 Garak 65.4 −11.3

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Guardrails AI’s 76.7.

Where the 76.7 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the Security & Guardrails average

76.7 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Guardrails AI Security & Guardrails average (26 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
20.0 / 25
10.3 above avg 9.7
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
18.0 / 18
5.8 above avg 12.2
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
13.6 / 17
1.3 above avg 12.3
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
12.0 / 20
3.3 below avg 15.3
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
15.1 / 20
5.0 above avg 10.1

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Improve maintenance to lift the weakest part of the trust profile.
Recent Changes
2026-09-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 101 spots (#82 → #183)
2026-09-21
Rank Moved
Rank rose 105 spots (#186 → #81)
2026-09-13
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 37 spots (#132 → #169)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 6.0/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Compare with HOL Guard Get email alerts for Guardrails AI View Security & Guardrails Report missing data
61.6
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#5
In Security & Guardrails

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 refreshed 2026-10-09 16:07 UTC · Repo last pushed today

Rank Trend

2026-09-29 2026-10-09

Activity & Reach

Stars
7.5k
Forks
715
Last Push
2026-10-09
today
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
22,663
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
19
Open Issues
28
Rank Change
▼5
was #207

Analysis

Activity Inputs

61.6 / 100
StarsRepository reach
23.3 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.3 / 20

Common questions about Guardrails AI

Public supply-chain signals for Guardrails AI are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but Guardrails AI carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.
Does Guardrails AI publish package provenance?
Yes. Guardrails AI's package releases carry build provenance attestations, which cryptographically link the published package back to its source repository and CI workflow.
Does Guardrails AI have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Guardrails AI 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 Guardrails AI actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does Guardrails AI use?
Guardrails AI ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Guardrails AI's commits signed?
100% of the last 100 commits to Guardrails AI 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.

Compare Guardrails AI head-to-head

Guardrails AI vs HOL Guard → Guardrails AI vs REA → Guardrails AI vs AiSOC →

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
None detected
No MCP server signal detected.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
high confidence
3 detected
Public provider/service dependencies detected.
Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
None detected
No clear plugin system or broad tool surface detected.
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

Maintain Guardrails AI?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Guardrails AI 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
Rank 5Score 1Grade 1
2026-09-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 101 spots (#82 → #183)
2026-09-21
Rank Moved
Rank rose 105 spots (#186 → #81)
2026-09-13
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 37 spots (#132 → #169)
2026-09-12
Grade Changed
Trust grade A → B
2026-09-05
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 29 spots (#84 → #113)
2026-08-31
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#70 → #82)
2026-07-19
Activity Score Changed
Activity score down 5pts (77 → 72)
GitHub → Website → PyPI: guardrails-ai

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 76.7 Grade B
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/guardrails-ai.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/guardrails-ai)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/guardrails-ai"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/guardrails-ai.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in Security & Guardrails

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