Is OpenManus safe?
OpenManus scores 20.1/100 (Grade D), ranked #326 of 328 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage B (3 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found;
no OSSF Scorecard result yet;
24% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-02-11. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
20.1/100 · Grade D
Strongest Signal
Adoption
13.5/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
1.2/25
What Would Improve It
Add or improve OSSF Scorecard coverage so safety checks are easier to verify.
Recent Changes
2026-06-24
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 35 spots (#276 → #311)
2026-06-23
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 23 spots (#253 → #276)
2026-06-22
Rank Moved
Rank dropped 10 spots (#243 → #253)
Maintainer Checklist
Add Scorecard coverageExpose the repository to OpenSSF Scorecard checks so supply-chain posture is easier to verify.
Publish provenanceAdd package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
Increase signed commitsRaise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.
Refresh maintenance signalsThe repo was last pushed 150 days ago. Fresh activity helps separate stable projects from stale ones.
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 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 →
Signals refreshed2026-07-11 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed 150 days ago
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
57.0k
Forks
9.9k
Last Push
2026-02-11
150 days ago
Commits (4 wk)
0
Downloads (7d)
38
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
2
Open Issues
312
Rank Change
=
was #326
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
20.1 / 100 · 75.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
1.2 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
8.5 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
2.0 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
13.5 / 20
Activity Inputs
51.4 / 100
StarsRepository reach
28.5 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
4.2 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
0.0 / 25
CommunityFork signal
18.6 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
—
Not available
Signed Commits
24%
of last 100 commits verified
Is OpenManus safe?
Public trust evidence for OpenManus is thin: several supply-chain signals are missing or weak. This does not mean the project is unsafe — it means an outside observer cannot easily verify the usual integrity checks. Treat with extra scrutiny.
Does OpenManus publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for OpenManus. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does OpenManus have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for OpenManus. Maintainers can enable the Scorecard GitHub Action to get a public score; without it, automated supply-chain hygiene is harder for outsiders to verify.
Is OpenManus actively maintained?
Slowing down. Last push was 150 days ago — keep an eye on whether activity resumes.
What license does OpenManus use?
OpenManus ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are OpenManus's commits signed?
24% of the last 100 commits to OpenManus 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
medium confidence
Declared
MCP support appears present, but direct server implementation is less certain.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
No explicit API-key/config marker detected.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
3 tags
Broad capability areas detected.
browser
code
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 OpenManus'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.
Detected MCP server support changed: none → declared
2026-06-05
Drift Warning Raised
Package-provenance drift warning: package metadata no longer clearly points at this repo
Maintain OpenManus?
HVTrust scores OpenManus 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.
