Is Mastra safe?
Mastra scores 45.2/100 (Grade D), ranked #259 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 5.1/10;
94% 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
Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
45.2/100 · Grade D
Strongest Signal
Maintenance
20.0/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
11.1/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-06-24
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 32 spots (#207 → #239)
2026-06-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 15 spots (#192 → #207)
2026-06-22
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 10 spots (#182 → #192)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 5.1/10. 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 D 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 05:00 UTC·Repo last pushed today
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
26.0k
Forks
2.4k
Last Push
2026-07-11
today
Commits (4 wk)
889
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
57
Open Issues
229
Rank Change
=
was #259
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
45.2 / 100 · 75.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
11.1 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
12.8 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
20.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
10.6 / 20
Activity Inputs
92.2 / 100
StarsRepository reach
26.5 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
15.7 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
5.1 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 11, 2026
Signed Commits
94%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection4
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review7
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow0
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License9
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies6
SAST7
Security-Policy0
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is Mastra safe?
Public trust evidence for Mastra 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 Mastra publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Mastra. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Mastra have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Mastra has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.1/10. 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 Mastra actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does Mastra use?
Mastra ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Mastra's commits signed?
94% of the last 100 commits to Mastra 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
medium confidence
Declared
MCP support appears present, but direct server implementation is less certain.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
browser
code
database
filesystem
search
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 Mastra'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: Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Postgres, Tavily
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → declared
Maintain Mastra?
HVTrust scores Mastra 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.
