Is OpenClaw safe?
OpenClaw scores 77.9/100 (Grade B), ranked #47 of 328 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage A (4 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: its packages ship with cryptographic provenance;
OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 5.6/10;
recent commits are unsigned;
last pushed 2026-07-11. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.
77.9/100 · Grade B
Strongest Signal
Identity / Provenance
18.0/18
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
14.5/25
What Would Improve It
Increase the share of verified signed commits for clearer maintainer identity.
Recent Changes
2026-06-20
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 19 spots (#12 → #31)
2026-06-20
HVTrust Changed
HVTrust down 4.8pts (89.1 → 84.3)
2026-06-19
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Firecrawl
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 5.6/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Increase signed commitsRaise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
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 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed today
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
382.5k
Forks
80.3k
Last Push
2026-07-11
today
Commits (4 wk)
7619
Downloads (7d)
3,396,211
npm+pypi
HN mentions (30d)
78
Open Issues
3611
Rank Change
▲2
was #49
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
77.9 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
14.5 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
18.0 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
13.3 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
20.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
20.0 / 20
Activity Inputs
100.0 / 100
StarsRepository reach
30 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
25.0 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
25 / 25
CommunityFork signal
20 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
Verified
npm attestation
OSSF Scorecard
5.6 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
—
Unable to query
Binary-Artifacts9
Branch-Protection3
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review3
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow0
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License9
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies8
SAST8
Security-Policy10
Signed-Releases0
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities10
Is OpenClaw safe?
Public supply-chain signals for OpenClaw are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but OpenClaw carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.
Does OpenClaw publish package provenance?
Yes. OpenClaw's package releases carry build provenance attestations, which cryptographically link the published package back to its source repository and CI workflow.
Does OpenClaw have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
OpenClaw has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.6/10. 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 OpenClaw actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does OpenClaw use?
OpenClaw ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
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
OpenClaw 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
high confidence
Extensions
Extension based plugin/integration surface detected.
browser
code
database
shell
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
high confidence
Warning
1 package source mismatch detected
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 OpenClaw'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.
2026-06-19
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: Firecrawl
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependencies: Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Google Gemini, OpenAI, Postgres
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → implemented
2026-06-05
Drift Warning Raised
Package-provenance drift warning: package metadata no longer clearly points at this repo
2026-06-05
Provenance Added
Package provenance attestation detected
Maintain OpenClaw?
HVTrust scores OpenClaw 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.
