RuView
π RuView turns commodity WiFi signals into real-time spatial intelligence, vital sign monitoring, and presence detection — all without a single pixel of video.
Is RuView safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.
Compare RuView
How does it stack up against its Agent Skills neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: RuView scores 72.7/100 (Grade B), ranked #29 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 5.5/10; 35% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-09-26. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How RuView compares in Agent Skills
- #27 Headroomlabs Headroom 75.2 +2.5
- #28 Openmed 74.8 +2.1
- #29 RuView 72.7 this agent
- #30 Computer Use Linux 72.0 −0.7
- #31 nWave 70.7 −2.0
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks RuView’s 72.7.
Where the 72.7 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Agent Skills average
72.7 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceRuView Agent Skills average (351 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 B 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
Activity & Reach
Analysis
Activity Inputs
99.0 / 100Supply Chain Trust
Common questions about RuView
Does RuView publish package provenance?
Does RuView have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is RuView actively maintained?
What license does RuView use?
Are RuView'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 →
- database
- MCP signal live
- External deps live
- Tool / plugin surface live
- Package provenance drift live
Detected changes to RuView'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 RuView?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores RuView 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/ruview)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/ruview"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/ruview.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Agent Skills
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · PyPI / pypistats (downloads, provenance) · OpenSSF Scorecard CLI
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.3 · Raw JSON