Is LiteLLM safe?
LiteLLM scores 77.0/100 (Grade B), ranked #50 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 6.1/10;
60% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-07-11. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.
77.0/100 · Grade B
Strongest Signal
Maintenance
20.0/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
10.6/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 6.1/10. 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.
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 refreshed2026-07-11 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed today
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
53.2k
Forks
9.7k
Last Push
2026-07-11
today
Commits (4 wk)
868
Downloads (7d)
146,644,474
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
9
Open Issues
1418
Rank Change
▼3
was #47
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
77.0 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
10.6 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
13.7 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
20.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
20.0 / 20
Activity Inputs
96.9 / 100
StarsRepository reach
28.4 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
18.5 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
6.1 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
60%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts0
Branch-Protection4
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review10
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License9
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies6
SAST7
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is LiteLLM safe?
Public supply-chain signals for LiteLLM are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but LiteLLM carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.
Does LiteLLM publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for LiteLLM. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does LiteLLM have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
LiteLLM has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.1/10. 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 LiteLLM actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does LiteLLM use?
LiteLLM ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are LiteLLM's commits signed?
60% of the last 100 commits to LiteLLM 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
LiteLLM 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.
database
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
high confidence
Match
Published package metadata matches the tracked repo
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 LiteLLM'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.
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependencies: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Postgres, Redis
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
Maintain LiteLLM?
HVTrust scores LiteLLM 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.
