Human Review
Website
A visual tool to edit HTML and Markdown files, leave comments like a Google Doc, and send feedback to your AI agent. Works inside your favorite AI harness.
Is Human Review safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
Compare Human Review
How does it stack up against its Agent Skills neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: Human Review scores 66.6/100 (Grade B), ranked #46 of 385 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: its packages ship with cryptographic provenance; OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 3.4/10; 30% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (human-review); last pushed 2026-09-17. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How Human Review 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 3.4 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Dependency-Update-Tool 0, Fuzzing 0 +11.7 → 78.3 B · #19 of 385
- Sign every commit30% signed today +3.5 → 70.1 B · #33 of 385
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Human Review 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 and, for skills, AST02 Supply Chain Compromise.
-
Source Partly signed
github.com/petergyang/human-review, MIT, last pushed 2026-09-17. 30% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
-
Review and release Weak
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 3.4/10 (scanned Oct 17, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review1
- Branch Protection3
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies3
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 3CI-Tests 10CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 1Contributors 3Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 0Packaging 10Pinned-Dependencies 3SAST 0Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases -1Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages Linked and attested
- npm human-review Source link points back to this repo Build provenance attested
-
What you install today No known advisories
Latest release checked: human-review 0.8.2. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-10-18).
Changes to this chain
- 2026-10-17 OSSF Scorecard: 3.4/10
Evidence behind this score
Coverage B: 3 of 5 independent evidence types found.
- GitHub repository data
- Package downloads
- Supply-chain checks
- Public actions (missing)
- Community mentions (missing)
Verify this score yourself
Every build re-issues Human Review’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 the skill’s instructions for injected instructions, watch runtime behaviour, or find bugs nobody has disclosed yet. For that, run a content scanner before you install it, such as Cisco Skill Scanner.
How Human Review compares in Agent Skills
- #44 Jscpd 66.9 +0.3
- #45 Wshobson Agents 66.6 ±0
- #46 Human Review 66.6 this agent
- #47 Context Mode 66.6 ±0
- #48 Loop Engineering 66.5 −0.1
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Human Review’s 66.6.
Where the 66.6 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Agent Skills average
66.6 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceHuman Review Agent Skills average (385 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 B is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (3 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Rank Trend
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
49.6 / 100Common questions about Human Review
Does Human Review publish package provenance?
Does Human Review have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is Human Review actively maintained?
What license does Human Review use?
Are Human Review'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
Maintain Human Review?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores Human Review 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/human-review)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/human-review"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/human-review.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Agent Skills
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · npm Registry (downloads, provenance) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON