Is Letta safe?
Letta scores 55.3/100 (Grade C), ranked #206 of 328 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 4.3/10;
3% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-07-03. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
55.3/100 · Grade C
Strongest Signal
Adoption
16.4/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
5.5/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-07-03
Rank Moved
Rank rose 11 spots (#195 → #184)
2026-06-26
Rank Moved
Rank rose 25 spots (#215 → #190)
2026-06-26
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 4.9pts (53.9 → 58.8)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 4.3/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Publish provenanceAdd package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
Increase signed commitsRaise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade C 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 refreshed2026-07-11 05:00 UTC·Repo last pushed 8 days ago
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
23.7k
Forks
2.5k
Last Push
2026-07-03
8 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
3
Downloads (7d)
26,840
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
1
Open Issues
26
Rank Change
=
was #206
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
55.3 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
5.5 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
12.2 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
13.9 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
16.4 / 20
Activity Inputs
73.6 / 100
StarsRepository reach
26.3 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
23.9 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
7.5 / 25
CommunityFork signal
15.8 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
4.3 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 11, 2026
Signed Commits
3%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection5
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review8
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow0
Dependency-Update-Tool0
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies0
SAST0
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is Letta safe?
Letta 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 Letta publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Letta. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Letta have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Letta has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 4.3/10. 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 Letta actively maintained?
Maintained. Last push was 8 days ago.
What license does Letta use?
Letta ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Letta's commits signed?
3% of the last 100 commits to Letta 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.
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
Letta appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
code
database
search
shell
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
How this surface has changed
Detected changes to Letta'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.
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
Maintain Letta?
HVTrust scores Letta 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.
