updated 2026-08-11 21:02 UTC

LLM Gateway

theopenco/llmgateway

Route, manage, and analyze your LLM requests across multiple providers with a unified API interface.

LLM Gateways & Infra TypeScript Grade C Listed NOASSERTION
63.2/100
Rank #270 of 1283
Compare LLM Gateway

How does it stack up against its LLM Gateways & Infra neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.

Open compare tool Suggest correction
Listing state
Listed
Evidence coverage
Grade C · 2/5 signals
Last push
2026-08-11 · 0d ago
Recent change
Rank +2

Is LLM Gateway safe? LLM Gateway scores 63.2/100 (Grade C), ranked #270 of 1283 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 6.1/10; 100% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-08-11. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

Ranked neighbours in LLM Gateways & Infra

#6 Instructor — 66.4 (B) → #7 Jan — 65.9 (B) → #9 Portkey AI Gateway — 57.4 (C) → #10 Chat Nio — 39.6 (D) →

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 24 spots (#245 → #269)
2026-08-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 65 spots (#206 → #271)
2026-08-04
Rank Moved
Rank rose 19 spots (#206 → #187)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 6.1/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
Compare with Bifrost Get email alerts for LLM Gateway View LLM Gateways & Infra Report missing data
79.5
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#8
In LLM Gateways & Infra

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 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 →

Signals refreshed 2026-08-11 21:02 UTC · Repo last pushed today

Activity & Reach

Stars
1.5k
Forks
170
Last Push
2026-08-11
today
Commits (4 wk)
467
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
30
Rank Change
▼1
was #269

Analysis

HVTrust Dimensions vs LLM Gateways & Infra

63.2 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

LLM Gateway LLM Gateways & Infra average (13 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
12.6 / 25
2.4 above avg 10.2
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
1.1 below avg 11.9
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
13.7 / 17
1.6 above avg 12.1
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
20.0 / 20
2.7 above avg 17.3
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
7.6 / 20
6.3 below avg 13.9

Activity Inputs

79.5 / 100
StarsRepository reach
19.1 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
10.4 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
6.1 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Aug 10, 2026
Signed Commits
100%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts 10
Branch-Protection 3
CI-Tests 10
CII-Best-Practices 0
Code-Review 1
Contributors 10
Dangerous-Workflow 10
Dependency-Update-Tool 10
Fuzzing 0
License 9
Maintained 10
Packaging 10
Pinned-Dependencies 0
SAST 8
Security-Policy 0
Signed-Releases -1
Token-Permissions 0
Vulnerabilities 10

Is LLM Gateway safe?

LLM Gateway 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 LLM Gateway publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for LLM Gateway. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does LLM Gateway have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
LLM Gateway 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 LLM Gateway actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does LLM Gateway use?
LLM Gateway ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are LLM Gateway's commits signed?
100% of the last 100 commits to LLM Gateway 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.

Compare LLM Gateway head-to-head

LLM Gateway vs Bifrost → LLM Gateway vs Headroom → LLM Gateway vs vLLM →

AI agent surface

MCP, providers, tool surface
Scored in HVTrust

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
medium confidence
Declared
MCP support appears present, but direct server implementation is less certain.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
high confidence
2 detected
Public provider/service dependencies detected.
Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
None detected
No clear plugin system or broad tool surface detected.
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 LLM Gateway?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores LLM Gateway 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.

Submit a correction → Add the trust badge

Reputation Timeline

Signal history
Rank 5Listed 1
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 24 spots (#245 → #269)
2026-08-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 65 spots (#206 → #271)
2026-08-04
Rank Moved
Rank rose 19 spots (#206 → #187)
2026-08-03
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 20 spots (#186 → #206)
2026-08-01
Rank Moved
Rank rose 10 spots (#194 → #184)
2026-07-28
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #191
GitHub →

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 63.2 Grade C
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/llm-gateway.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/llm-gateway)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/llm-gateway"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/llm-gateway.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in LLM Gateways & Infra

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON