Is Open Code Review safe to use?

Open Code Review has an HVTrust score of 83.2/100 (Grade A), ranked #12 of 351 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Open Code Review?

Open Code Review scores 83.2/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 41.4k GitHub stars and is categorized under Agent Skills.

Open Code Review

alibaba/open-code-review

Secure, fast, efficient, battle-tested at Alibaba's scale. Hybrid architecture code review tool: deterministic pipelines + LLM Agent, precise line-level comments, built-in multi-language ruleset (NPE, thread-safety, XSS, SQL injection), OpenAI & Anthropic compatible.

Agent Skills Go Listed Apache-2.0

Is Open Code Review safe? Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.

OSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10

Provenance None

Signed commits 99%

Last push 2d ago

Compare Open Code Review

How does it stack up against its Agent Skills neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: Open Code Review scores 83.2/100 (Grade A), ranked #12 of 351 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 7.4/10; 99% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-09-24. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Open Code Review compares in Agent Skills

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Open Code Review’s 83.2.

Where the 83.2 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the Agent Skills average

83.2 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Open Code Review Agent Skills average (351 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits

14.2 / 25

6.1 above avg 8.1

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

0.6 below avg 11.4

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

14.8 / 17

2.6 above avg 12.2

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

19.9 / 20

5.7 above avg 14.2

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

17.8 / 20

8.8 above avg 9.0

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.

Recent Changes

2026-09-23

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Anthropic

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

Maintainer Checklist

Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.

Compare with another agent Get email alerts for Open Code Review View Agent Skills Report missing data

93.8

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#12

In Agent Skills

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade A 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 →

Rank Trend

2026-08-11 2026-09-26

Activity & Reach

Stars

41.4k

Forks

3.0k

Last Push

2026-09-24

2 days ago

Commits (4 wk)

160

Downloads (7d)

107,099

npm

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

was #12

Analysis

Activity Inputs

93.8 / 100

StarsRepository reach

27.7 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

24.7 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

25 / 25

CommunityFork signal

16.2 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

7.4 / 10

OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Sep 20, 2026

Signed Commits

99%

of last 100 commits verified

Binary-Artifacts 9

Branch-Protection 6

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 10

Code-Review 10

Contributors 10

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 10

Fuzzing 0

License 10

Maintained 10

Packaging -1

Pinned-Dependencies 2

SAST 10

Security-Policy 10

Signed-Releases 0

Token-Permissions 9

Vulnerabilities 3

Common questions about Open Code Review

Public supply-chain signals for Open Code Review are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but Open Code Review carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.

Does Open Code Review publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for Open Code Review. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.

Does Open Code Review have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

Open Code Review has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 7.4/10. 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 Open Code Review actively maintained?

Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 2 day(s).

What license does Open Code Review use?

Open Code Review ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are Open Code Review's commits signed?

99% of the last 100 commits to Open Code Review 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

Open Code Review appears to expose MCP server capabilities.

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

External Service Dependencies

medium confidence

1 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Anthropic

Credential signal: No explicit API-key/config marker detected.

Tool / Plugin Surface

high confidence

Declared

Declared plugin/integration 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 Open Code Review'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

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Anthropic

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

Maintain Open Code Review?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Open Code Review 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.

Submit a correction → Add the trust badge

Reputation Timeline

Signal history

2026-09-23

Tool Surface Changed

Detected tool/plugin surface changed: none → declared

2026-09-23

Provider Added

Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Anthropic

2026-09-23

Mcp Status Changed

Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented

2026-09-23

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → A

2026-09-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 154 spots (#166 → #12)

2026-09-23

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 45.1pts (38.2 → 83.3)

2026-09-22

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #166

2026-09-21

Removed From Active Tracking

Removed from active tracking

2026-09-05

Grade Changed

Trust grade C → A

2026-09-05

Rank Moved

Rank rose 133 spots (#139 → #6)

2026-09-05

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 30.1pts (52.9 → 83.0)

2026-09-03

Grade Changed

Trust grade A → C

2026-09-03

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 130 spots (#1 → #131)

2026-09-03

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust down 30.1pts (83.0 → 52.9)

2026-08-26

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 7.8/10

2026-08-26

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → A

2026-08-26

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 36.7pts (46.4 → 83.1)

2026-08-11

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #7

GitHub → npm: @alibaba-group/open-code-review

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/open-code-review.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/open-code-review)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/open-code-review"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/open-code-review.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in Agent Skills

Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · npm Registry (downloads, provenance) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON