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. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-06-22 00:01 UTC·Repo last pushed 4 days ago
Activity & Reach
Stars
6.5k
Forks
711
Last Push
2026-06-18
4 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
64
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
90
Rank Change
=
was #266
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
23.8 / 100 · 50.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
0.0 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
8.5 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
19.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
9.2 / 20
Activity Inputs
83.4 / 100
StarsRepository reach
22.9 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.4 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
22.6 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.3 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
—
Not available
Signed Commits
0%
of last 100 commits verified
Is IntentKit safe?
Public trust evidence for IntentKit 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 IntentKit publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for IntentKit. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does IntentKit have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for IntentKit. Maintainers can enable the Scorecard GitHub Action to get a public score; without it, automated supply-chain hygiene is harder for outsiders to verify.
Is IntentKit actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 4 day(s).
What license does IntentKit use?
IntentKit ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are IntentKit's commits signed?
0% of the last 100 commits to IntentKit 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
Profile context only
HVTrust currently ranks supply-chain and project-integrity trust only. This public view shows a compact AI-agent surface snapshot from repo docs and manifests. These fields are descriptive context and do not affect the production HVTrust rank. An experimental local preview remains available in Score Lab →, and the policy boundary is tracked on the roadmap →
MCP Server Support
None detected
No MCP server signal detected.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
high confidence
6 detected
Public provider/service dependencies detected.
Amazon Bedrock
Anthropic
OpenAI
Postgres
Redis
Supabase
Credential signal:
No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
code
database
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
N/A
No package source configured
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
MCP signal live
External deps live
Tool / plugin surface live
Package provenance drift live
Maintain IntentKit?
HVTrust scores IntentKit 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.
Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v3.2 · Raw JSON
