Is Open Interpreter safe?
Open Interpreter scores 73.5/100 (Grade B), ranked #65 of 328 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage A (4 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found;
OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 5.0/10;
89% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-07-07. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
73.5/100 · Grade B
Strongest Signal
Maintenance
19.7/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
10.7/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Recent Changes
2026-07-08
Scorecard Added
OSSF Scorecard: 5.0/10
2026-07-08
Grade Changed
Trust grade D → B
2026-07-08
Rank Moved
Rank rose 178 spots (#243 → #65)
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 5.0/10. 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 B reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Evidence coverage A is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (4 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-07-11 05:00 UTC·Repo last pushed 4 days ago
Rank Trend
2026-07-072026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
64.3k
Forks
5.6k
Last Push
2026-07-07
4 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
678
Downloads (7d)
53,923
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
0
Open Issues
267
Rank Change
=
was #65
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
73.5 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
10.7 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
12.8 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
19.7 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
17.8 / 20
Activity Inputs
95.7 / 100
StarsRepository reach
28.9 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.4 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
17.4 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
5.0 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 11, 2026
Signed Commits
89%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection3
CI-Tests-1
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review0
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained10
Packaging-1
Pinned-Dependencies8
SAST0
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases0
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is Open Interpreter safe?
Open Interpreter has a mixed signal profile. Some trust indicators are present, others are missing. Whether it is safe for your use case depends on which gaps matter to you — review the breakdown below before adopting in production.
Does Open Interpreter publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Open Interpreter. 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 Interpreter have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Open Interpreter has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.0/10. 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 Interpreter actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 4 day(s).
What license does Open Interpreter use?
Open Interpreter ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Open Interpreter's commits signed?
89% of the last 100 commits to Open Interpreter 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
high confidence
Implemented
Open Interpreter appears to expose MCP server capabilities.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
medium confidence
Declared
Declared plugin/integration surface detected.
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
Maintain Open Interpreter?
HVTrust scores Open Interpreter 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.
