MCP As A Judge

MCP as a Judge is a behavioral MCP that strengthens AI coding assistants by requiring explicit LLM evaluations

MCP Servers Python Listed MIT

Is MCP As A Judge safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

OSSF Scorecard 2.8 / 10
Provenance None
Signed commits 13%
Last push 307d ago
Advisories None known
Compare MCP As A Judge
Suggest a correction

In detail: MCP As A Judge scores 36.1/100 (Grade D), ranked #1279 of 1378 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 2.8/10; 13% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (mcp-as-a-judge); last pushed 2025-12-15. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How MCP As A Judge 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.

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships MCP As A Judge and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the package you install. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.

  1. Source Partly signed

    github.com/OtherVibes/mcp-as-a-judge, MIT, last pushed 2025-12-15. 13% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.

  2. Review and release Weak

    OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 2.8/10 (scanned Oct 15, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:

    • Code Review0
    • Branch Protection5
    • Signed Releases0
    • Dangerous Workflow0
    • Token Permissions0
    • Pinned Dependencies0
    All 18 Scorecard checks
    Binary-Artifacts 10
    Branch-Protection 5
    CI-Tests 10
    CII-Best-Practices 0
    Code-Review 0
    Contributors 3
    Dangerous-Workflow 0
    Dependency-Update-Tool 10
    Fuzzing 0
    License 10
    Maintained 0
    Packaging 10
    Pinned-Dependencies 0
    SAST 0
    Security-Policy 0
    Signed-Releases 0
    Token-Permissions 0
    Vulnerabilities 0
  3. Published packages Linked, not attested

    • PyPI mcp-as-a-judge Source link points back to this repo No build attestation

    Without a build attestation, nothing proves the published files were built from this repository.

  4. What you install today No known advisories

    Latest release checked: mcp-as-a-judge 0.5.0. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-10-18).

Changes to this chain

  • 2026-09-02 OSSF Scorecard: 2.8/10

Evidence behind this score

Coverage B: 3 of 5 independent evidence types found.

  • GitHub repository data
  • Package downloads
  • Supply-chain checks
  • Public actions (missing)
  • Community mentions (missing)

Verify this score yourself

Every build re-issues MCP As A Judge’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 MCP As A Judge compares in MCP Servers

  1. #736 Bigquery MCP 36.2 +0.1
  2. #737 Carbon Arc 36.2 +0.1
  3. #738 MCP As A Judge 36.1 this agent
  4. #739 Aigroup Mdtoword MCP 36.1 ±0
  5. #740 Agent MCP Gateway 35.9 −0.2

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks MCP As A Judge’s 36.1.

Where the 36.1 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the MCP Servers average

36.1 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

MCP As A Judge MCP Servers average (781 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits
4.1 / 25
6.5 below avg 10.6
Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance
10.8 / 18
2.8 below avg 13.6
Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard
10.9 / 17
1.4 below avg 12.3
Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity
0 / 20
12.2 below avg 12.2
AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads
5.3 / 20
2.1 below avg 7.4

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-09-23
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Multi-provider (LiteLLM)
2026-09-23
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
2026-09-23
Rank Moved
Rank rose 63 spots (#1295 → #1232)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signals Current OSSF Scorecard is 2.8/10. 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.
Increase signed commits Raise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
Refresh maintenance signals The repo was last pushed 307 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.
12.2
Activity sub-score · out of 100
#738

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 refreshed 2026-10-18 00:07 UTC · Repo last pushed 307 days ago — may be stale

Rank Trend

2026-09-29 2026-10-17

Activity & Reach

Stars
17
Forks
9
Last Push
2025-12-15
307 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
47
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
—
Open Issues
0
Rank Change
▲1
was #1280

Analysis

Activity Inputs

12.2 / 100
StarsRepository reach
7.5 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
0.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
4.7 / 20

Common questions about MCP As A Judge

Public trust evidence for MCP As A Judge 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 MCP As A Judge publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for MCP As A Judge. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does MCP As A Judge have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
MCP As A Judge has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 2.8/10. 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 MCP As A Judge actively maintained?
Stale. The repository has not been pushed to in 307 days. Consider whether the project is still being maintained.
What license does MCP As A Judge use?
MCP As A Judge ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are MCP As A Judge's commits signed?
13% of the last 100 commits to MCP As A Judge 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.

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
Implemented
MCP As A Judge appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
External Service Dependencies
high confidence
1 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
high confidence
Match
Published package metadata matches the tracked repo
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 MCP As A Judge'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.

2026-09-23
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Multi-provider (LiteLLM)
2026-09-23
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

Maintain MCP As A Judge?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores MCP As A Judge 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
Rank 21Listed 2HVTrust 2Scorecard 1Delisted 1MCP 1Surface 1
2026-09-23
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Multi-provider (LiteLLM)
2026-09-23
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
2026-09-23
Rank Moved
Rank rose 63 spots (#1295 → #1232)
2026-09-23
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 22.4pts (13.1 → 35.5)
2026-09-22
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #1295
2026-09-21
Removed From Active Tracking
Removed from active tracking
2026-09-08
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 12 spots (#1193 → #1205)
2026-09-07
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 17 spots (#1176 → #1193)
2026-09-06
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 17 spots (#1159 → #1176)
2026-09-05
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 33 spots (#1126 → #1159)
2026-09-04
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 20 spots (#1106 → #1126)
2026-09-03
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 49 spots (#1057 → #1106)
2026-09-02
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 2.8/10
2026-09-02
Rank Moved
Rank rose 165 spots (#1222 → #1057)
2026-09-02
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust up 14.2pts (21.9 → 36.1)
2026-09-01
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 26 spots (#1196 → #1222)
2026-08-31
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 25 spots (#1171 → #1196)
2026-08-30
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 35 spots (#1136 → #1171)
2026-08-29
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 32 spots (#1104 → #1136)
2026-08-28
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 27 spots (#1077 → #1104)
2026-08-27
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 18 spots (#1059 → #1077)
2026-08-26
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 74 spots (#985 → #1059)
2026-08-24
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 11 spots (#971 → #982)
2026-08-22
Rank Moved
Rank rose 12 spots (#988 → #976)
2026-08-17
Rank Moved
Rank rose 11 spots (#992 → #981)
2026-08-16
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 28 spots (#964 → #992)
2026-08-12
Rank Moved
Rank rose 16 spots (#975 → #959)
2026-08-10
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 57 spots (#912 → #969)
2026-08-08
Newly Listed
First tracked at rank #904

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers
HVTrust 36.1 Grade D
Markdown:
[![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-as-a-judge.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-as-a-judge)
HTML:
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mcp-as-a-judge"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mcp-as-a-judge.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in MCP Servers

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · PyPI / pypistats (downloads, provenance) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON