Is LLM Guard safe?
LLM Guard scores 58.2/100 (Grade C), ranked #180 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 5.6/10;
recent commits are unsigned;
last pushed 2026-07-08. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Active listing, but review is needed
[5.1] repository is archived
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
58.2/100 · Grade C
Strongest Signal
Transparency
13.3/17
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
7.0/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-07-09
Warning Issued
Warning: eligibility issues detected
2026-07-09
Rank Moved
Rank rose 13 spots (#185 → #172)
2026-07-08
Activity Resumed
Activity resumed
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 5.6/10. 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 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed 3 days ago
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
3.2k
Forks
418
Last Push
2026-07-08
3 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
1
Downloads (7d)
55,564
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
0
Open Issues
12
Rank Change
=
was #180
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
58.2 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
7.0 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
13.3 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
13.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
14.7 / 20
Activity Inputs
61.7 / 100
StarsRepository reach
21.0 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.6 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
3.8 / 25
CommunityFork signal
12.2 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
5.6 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
—
Unable to query
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection1
CI-Tests4
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review8
Contributors0
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained0
Packaging-1
Pinned-Dependencies0
SAST8
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities10
Is LLM Guard safe?
LLM Guard 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 Guard publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for LLM 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 LLM Guard have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
LLM Guard has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.6/10. 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 Guard actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 3 day(s).
What license does LLM Guard use?
LLM Guard ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
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.
External Service Dependencies
None detected
No clear third-party provider dependency detected.
Credential signal:
No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
code
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 LLM 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 LLM 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.
