mateclaw
Website
🤖 MateClaw — Your second brain with Multi-Agent Orchestration, MCP Protocol, Skills & Memory, Dream, and Multi-Channel Support. Built on Spring AI Alibaba.
Is mateclaw safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare mateclaw
How does it stack up against its Multi-Agent Systems neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: mateclaw scores 50.1/100 (Grade C), ranked #1008 of 1374 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 2.3/10; 8% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-11-02. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How mateclaw could raise its score
Each line changes one public signal and recomputes with the live scoring function. The gains don't add up exactly, because the score is capped near the top.
- Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 2.3 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CI-Tests 0, CII-Best-Practices 0 +14.0 → 64.1 C · #15 of 43
- Sign every commit8% signed today +4.6 → 54.7 C · #27 of 43
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships mateclaw and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the code you run. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.
-
Source Partly signed
github.com/mateaix/mateclaw, Apache-2.0, last pushed 2026-11-02. 8% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
-
Review and release Weak
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 2.3/10 (scanned Oct 26, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review1
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflown/a
- Token Permissionsn/a
- Pinned Dependencies2
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 0CI-Tests 0CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 1Contributors 0Dangerous-Workflow -1Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 10Packaging -1Pinned-Dependencies 2SAST 0Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases 0Token-Permissions -1Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages None
No registry package. mateclaw is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.
Changes to this chain
- 2026-09-01 OSSF Scorecard: 2.2/10
Evidence behind this score
Coverage C: 2 of 5 independent evidence types found.
- GitHub repository data
- Package downloads (missing)
- Supply-chain checks
- Public actions (missing)
- Community mentions (missing)
Verify this score yourself
Every build re-issues mateclaw’s score as an Ed25519-signed credential, valid for 7 days. You can check it offline against HVTracker’s published key; if anyone changes a number after signing, verification fails.
What this score doesn’t check
It covers who ships the code, not what the code does. It doesn’t read tool descriptions or prompts for injected instructions, watch runtime behaviour, or find bugs nobody has disclosed yet. For that, run a content scanner before you connect it, such as Cisco MCP Scanner or Snyk Agent Scan.
How mateclaw compares in Multi-Agent Systems
- #28 Agent Squad 51.2 +1.1
- #29 MiroFish 50.2 +0.1
- #30 mateclaw 50.1 this agent
- #31 BettaFish 49.3 −0.8
- #32 Swarm by OpenAI 44.2 −5.9
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks mateclaw’s 50.1.
Where the 50.1 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Multi-Agent Systems average
50.1 / 100 · 100.0% confidencemateclaw Multi-Agent Systems average (43 agents)
Quick Trust Read
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 →
Rank Trend
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
75.4 / 100Common questions about mateclaw
Does mateclaw publish package provenance?
Does mateclaw have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is mateclaw actively maintained?
What license does mateclaw use?
Are mateclaw's commits signed?
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.
AI agent surface
MCP, providers, tool surface
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 signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Detected changes to mateclaw'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.
Maintain mateclaw?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores mateclaw 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.
Reputation Timeline
Signal history
Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →
For maintainers
[](https://hvtracker.net/agents/mateclaw)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mateclaw"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mateclaw.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Multi-Agent Systems
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON