Is Marvin safe?
Marvin scores 52.3/100 (Grade C), ranked #223 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 5.3/10;
recent commits are unsigned;
last pushed 2026-05-12. 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.
52.3/100 · Grade C
Strongest Signal
Transparency
13.0/17
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
6.6/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-06-24
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 25 spots (#185 → #210)
2026-06-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 11 spots (#174 → #185)
2026-06-20
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#146 → #158)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 5.3/10. 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.
Refresh maintenance signalsThe repo was last pushed 60 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.
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 60 days ago
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
6.2k
Forks
403
Last Push
2026-05-12
60 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
34,051
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
1
Open Issues
61
Rank Change
▼1
was #222
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
52.3 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
6.6 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
13.0 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
8.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
15.1 / 20
Activity Inputs
51.6 / 100
StarsRepository reach
22.7 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
16.7 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
12.1 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
5.3 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
—
Unable to query
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection5
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review0
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained5
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies0
SAST0
Security-Policy0
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions9
Vulnerabilities0
Is Marvin safe?
Public trust evidence for Marvin 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 Marvin publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Marvin. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Marvin have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Marvin has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.3/10. 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 Marvin actively maintained?
Slowing down. Last push was 60 days ago — keep an eye on whether activity resumes.
What license does Marvin use?
Marvin ships under Apache-2.0. 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
high confidence
Implemented
Marvin 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.
code
database
shell
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 Marvin'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.
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
Maintain Marvin?
HVTrust scores Marvin 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.
