open-science
Website
The open-source AI research workbench for scientific research and agent workflows. Local-first, model-agnostic desktop app with extensible skills, MCP tools and connectors, Python/R execution and traceable artifacts for reproducible research on macOS, Windows and Linux.
Is open-science safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
Compare open-science
How does it stack up against its Research & Data neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: open-science scores 62.5/100 (Grade C), ranked #595 of 1371 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 3.9/10; 100% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-10-10. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How open-science 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 3.9 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Dangerous-Workflow 0, Fuzzing 0 +10.6 → 73.1 B · #6 of 37
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships open-science 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 Signed
github.com/aipoch/open-science, Apache-2.0, last pushed 2026-10-10. 100% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature, so changes trace to a verified account.
-
Review and release Weak
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 3.9/10 (scanned Sep 20, 2026, refresh pending). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review2
- Branch Protection3
- Signed Releases0
- Dangerous Workflow0
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies9
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 3Branch-Protection 3CI-Tests 10CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 2Contributors 10Dangerous-Workflow 0Dependency-Update-Tool 10Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 0Packaging -1Pinned-Dependencies 9SAST 7Security-Policy 10Signed-Releases 0Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 7 -
Published packages None
No registry package. open-science is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.
Changes to this chain
- 2026-09-04 OSSF Scorecard: 4.2/10
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 open-science’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 open-science compares in Research & Data
- #10 Vibe-Trading 65.2 +2.7
- #11 EvoScientist 62.5 ±0
- #12 open-science 62.5 this agent
- #13 Maxun 62.2 −0.3
- #14 OpenBB 61.7 −0.8
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks open-science’s 62.5.
Where the 62.5 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Research & Data average
62.5 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceopen-science Research & Data average (37 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
85.0 / 100Common questions about open-science
Does open-science publish package provenance?
Does open-science have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is open-science actively maintained?
What license does open-science use?
Are open-science'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 open-science'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 open-science?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores open-science 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/open-science)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/open-science"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/open-science.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Research & Data
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