Sage
Website
Lightweight Agent Detection & Response (ADR) layer for AI agents — guards commands, files, and web requests. Part of Gen Agent Trust Hub.
Is Sage safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare Sage
How does it stack up against its Agent Skills neighbours?
- Video Shotcraft +0.3 higher
- twostraws · SwiftUI Agent Skill +0.2 higher
- Claude Code Skills 0.1 lower
In detail: Sage scores 49.3/100 (Grade D), ranked #247 of 371 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 4.4/10; 32% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-09-16. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How Sage 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 4.4 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Dependency-Update-Tool 0, Fuzzing 0 +9.6 → 58.9 C · #116 of 371
- Sign every commit32% signed today +3.4 → 52.7 C · #200 of 371
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Sage 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 and, for skills, AST02 Supply Chain Compromise.
-
Source Partly signed
github.com/gendigitalinc/sage, Apache-2.0, last pushed 2026-09-16. 32% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
-
Review and release Mixed
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 4.4/10 (scanned Oct 7, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review2
- Branch Protection5
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies0
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 5CI-Tests 10CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 2Contributors 10Dangerous-Workflow 10Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 3Packaging 10Pinned-Dependencies 0SAST 0Security-Policy 10Signed-Releases -1Token-Permissions 0Vulnerabilities 0 -
Published packages None
No registry package. Sage is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.
Changes to this chain
- 2026-09-12 OSSF Scorecard: 4.5/10
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 Sage’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 the skill’s instructions for injected instructions, watch runtime behaviour, or find bugs nobody has disclosed yet. For that, run a content scanner before you install it, such as Cisco Skill Scanner.
How Sage compares in Agent Skills
- #245 Video Shotcraft 49.6 +0.3
- #246 twostraws · SwiftUI Agent Skill 49.5 +0.2
- #247 Sage 49.3 this agent
- #248 Claude Code Skills 49.2 −0.1
- #249 Autoprompt Skill 49.1 −0.2
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Sage’s 49.3.
Where the 49.3 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Agent Skills average
49.3 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceSage Agent Skills average (371 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 D 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
47.4 / 100Common questions about Sage
Does Sage publish package provenance?
Does Sage have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is Sage actively maintained?
What license does Sage use?
Are Sage'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 Sage'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 Sage?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores Sage 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/sage)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/sage"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/sage.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>
Other agents in Agent Skills
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