MindOS
MindOS is a Human-AI Collaborative Mind System, where human thinks and agents act. Globally sync your mind for all agents: transparent, controllable, and evolving symbiotically.
Is MindOS safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare MindOS
How does it stack up against its Agent Skills neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: MindOS scores 48.3/100 (Grade D), ranked #270 of 371 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 3.2/10; 3% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-10-05. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How MindOS 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 3.2 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CII-Best-Practices 0, Code-Review 0 +12.1 → 60.4 C · #100 of 371
- Sign every commit3% signed today +4.8 → 53.1 C · #199 of 371
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships MindOS 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 and, for skills, AST02 Supply Chain Compromise.
-
Source Partly signed
github.com/GeminiLight/MindOS, MIT, last pushed 2026-10-05. 3% 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 3.2/10 (scanned Oct 6, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies0
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 0CI-Tests -1CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 0Contributors 3Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 10Packaging 10Pinned-Dependencies 0SAST 0Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases 0Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages None
No registry package. MindOS is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.
Changes to this chain
- 2026-08-30 OSSF Scorecard: 3.2/10
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 MindOS’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 the skill’s instructions for injected instructions, watch runtime behaviour, or find bugs nobody has disclosed yet. For that, run a content scanner before you install it, such as Cisco Skill Scanner.
How MindOS compares in Agent Skills
- #268 Pinme 48.3 ±0
- #269 Nopua 48.3 ±0
- #270 MindOS 48.3 this agent
- #271 Terrashark 48.2 −0.1
- #272 Phd Skills 48.1 −0.2
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks MindOS’s 48.3.
Where the 48.3 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Agent Skills average
48.3 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceMindOS Agent Skills average (371 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 D 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
57.9 / 100Common questions about MindOS
Does MindOS publish package provenance?
Does MindOS have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is MindOS actively maintained?
What license does MindOS use?
Are MindOS'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 MindOS'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 MindOS?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores MindOS 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/mindos)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/mindos"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/mindos.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Agent Skills
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