Is Llama Guard safe?
Llama Guard scores 51.5/100 (Grade C), ranked #227 of 328 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found;
OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 5.9/10;
1% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-07-01. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
51.5/100 · Grade C
Strongest Signal
Transparency
13.5/17
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
7.4/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-06-24
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 27 spots (#191 → #218)
2026-06-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 14 spots (#177 → #191)
2026-06-18
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 14 spots (#145 → #159)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 5.9/10. 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 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 →
Signals refreshed2026-07-11 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed 10 days ago
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
4.3k
Forks
747
Last Push
2026-07-01
10 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
1?
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
2
Open Issues
33
Rank Change
=
was #227
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
51.5 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
7.4 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
13.5 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
11.9 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
8.7 / 20
Activity Inputs
62.8 / 100
StarsRepository reach
21.8 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
23.6 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
3.8 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.4 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
5.9 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
1%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection3
CI-Tests-1
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review10
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing10
License9
Maintained10
Packaging-1
Pinned-Dependencies2
SAST0
Security-Policy0
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is Llama Guard safe?
Public trust evidence for Llama Guard 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 Llama Guard publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Llama Guard. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Llama Guard have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Llama Guard has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.9/10. 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 Llama Guard actively maintained?
Maintained. Last push was 10 days ago.
What license does Llama Guard use?
Llama Guard ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Llama Guard's commits signed?
1% of the last 100 commits to Llama Guard 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
None detected
No MCP server signal detected.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
medium confidence
1 tags
Broad capability areas detected.
code
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
How this surface has changed
Detected changes to Llama Guard'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.
HVTrust scores Llama Guard 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) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI · Algolia HN Search API
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.2 · Raw JSON
