LiteFlow
Lightweight, fast, stable, programmable component-based rule engine — where AI Agents orchestrate just like ordinary components. Uniquely designed DSL: component reuse, sync/async & dynamic orchestration, multi-language scripting, nested rules, hot deployment and smooth refresh. If you can…
Is LiteFlow safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare LiteFlow
How does it stack up against its Workflow Platforms neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: LiteFlow scores 42.5/100 (Grade D), ranked #1169 of 1374 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 2.8/10; recent commits are unsigned; last pushed 2026-09-21. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How LiteFlow 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 2.8 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0 +12.9 → 55.4 C · #21 of 26
- Sign every commit0% signed today +5.0 → 47.5 D · #23 of 26
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships LiteFlow 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 Unsigned
github.com/dromara/liteflow, Apache-2.0, last pushed 2026-09-21. None of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature, so no change traces to a verified identity.
-
Review and release Weak
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 2.8/10 (scanned Oct 30, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflown/a
- Token Permissionsn/a
- Pinned Dependencies0
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 0CI-Tests -1CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 0Contributors 10Dangerous-Workflow -1Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 10Packaging -1Pinned-Dependencies 0SAST 0Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases -1Token-Permissions -1Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages None
No registry package. LiteFlow 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 LiteFlow.
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 LiteFlow’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 LiteFlow compares in Workflow Platforms
- #22 Coze Studio 49.4 +6.9
- #23 PromptFlow 42.6 +0.1
- #24 LiteFlow 42.5 this agent
- #25 Activepieces 41.2 −1.3
- #26 Julep 40.7 −1.8
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks LiteFlow’s 42.5.
Where the 42.5 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Workflow Platforms average
42.5 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceLiteFlow Workflow Platforms average (26 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 D 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
53.0 / 100Common questions about LiteFlow
Does LiteFlow publish package provenance?
Does LiteFlow have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is LiteFlow actively maintained?
What license does LiteFlow use?
Are LiteFlow'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 LiteFlow?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores LiteFlow 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/liteflow)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/liteflow"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/liteflow.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Workflow Platforms
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