Treg has an HVTrust score of 71.4/100 (Grade B), ranked #352 of 1387 tracked AI agent projects. This score reflects verifiable supply-chain integrity, transparency, maintenance, and adoption signals.

What is the trust score for Treg?

Treg scores 71.4/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 8.0k GitHub stars and is categorized under Protocols & Tool Integration.

Treg

Repository

Website by superdesigndev

OpenRouter for agent tools. Join community here: https://discord.gg/6mQYYfFMAn

Protocols & Tool Integration Python Listed NOASSERTION Source-available

Is Treg safe? Promising trust profile, but some evidence still deserves review.

OSSF Scorecard 7.2 / 10

Provenance None

Signed commits 27%

Last push today

Advisories None known

Compare Treg

How does it stack up against its Protocols & Tool Integration neighbours?

Pick any agent to compare →

Suggest a correction

In detail: Treg scores 71.4/100 (Grade B), ranked #352 of 1387 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 7.2/10; 27% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (tools-registry); last pushed 2026-11-15. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →

How Treg 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.

Publish build provenance for its packagesPyPI Trusted Publishing attestations +13.8 → 85.2 A · #9 of 64
Raise the OSSF Scorecard from 7.2 to 9.0lowest checks: CII-Best-Practices 0, Fuzzing 0, Token-Permissions 0 +3.8 → 75.2 B · #12 of 64
Sign every commit27% signed today +3.7 → 75.1 B · #12 of 64

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

Chain of custody

Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Treg and whether that has changed: from the source repository, through how changes are reviewed and released, to the package you install. These are the checks for OWASP ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities.

Source Partly signed

github.com/superdesigndev/treg, NOASSERTION, last pushed 2026-11-15. 27% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
Review and release Strong

OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 7.2/10 (scanned Nov 15, 2026). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review10
- Branch Protection8
- Signed Releases8
- Dangerous Workflow10
- Token Permissions0
- Pinned Dependencies1
All 18 Scorecard checks

Binary-Artifacts 10

Branch-Protection 8

CI-Tests 10

CII-Best-Practices 0

Code-Review 10

Contributors 10

Dangerous-Workflow 10

Dependency-Update-Tool 10

Fuzzing 0

License 9

Maintained 10

Packaging 10

Pinned-Dependencies 1

SAST 10

Security-Policy 10

Signed-Releases 8

Token-Permissions 0

Vulnerabilities 1
Published packages Linked, not attested
- PyPI tools-registry Source link points back to this repo No build attestation
Without a build attestation, nothing proves the published files were built from this repository.
What you install today No known advisories

Latest release checked: tools-registry 0.30.0. No published advisory affects it (OSV, checked 2026-11-15).

Changes to this chain

2026-10-04 OSSF Scorecard: 6.1/10

Evidence behind this score

Coverage B: 3 of 5 independent evidence types found.

GitHub repository data
Package downloads
Supply-chain checks
Public actions (missing)
Community mentions (missing)

Verify this score yourself

Every build re-issues Treg’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.

Signed credential (JSON) How to verify

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 Treg compares in Protocols & Tool Integration

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Treg’s 71.4.

Where the 71.4 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the Protocols & Tool Integration average

71.4 / 100 · 100.0% confidence

Treg Protocols & Tool Integration average (64 agents)

Safety / Integrity50% OSSF Scorecard · 30% provenance · 20% signed commits

10.3 / 25

0.7 below avg 11.0

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

1.2 below avg 12.0

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

14.6 / 17

1.6 above avg 13.0

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

20.0 / 20

5.3 above avg 14.7

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

14.3 / 20

3.2 above avg 11.1

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.

Recent Changes

2026-11-15

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 21 spots (#331 → #352)

2026-11-12

Rank Moved

Rank rose 13 spots (#341 → #328)

2026-11-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 24 spots (#318 → #342)

Maintainer Checklist

Publish provenance Add package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.

Increase signed commits Raise the share of verified-signed commits to make maintainer identity and release history easier to trust.

Compare with another agent View Protocols & Tool Integration Report missing data

86.8

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#15

In Protocols & Tool Integration

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

2026-09-29 2026-11-15

Activity & Reach

Stars

8.0k

Forks

742

Last Push

2026-11-15

today

Commits (4 wk)

1462

Downloads (7d)

5,166

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

▼21

was #331

Analysis

Activity Inputs

86.8 / 100

StarsRepository reach

23.4 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

25.0 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

25 / 25

CommunityFork signal

13.4 / 20

Common questions about Treg

Source-available software. A lower HVTrust score reflects fewer public supply-chain artifacts (open license, build provenance, signed commits) — not a security finding. Treg may have internal security practices not visible through public signals.

Treg has a mixed signal profile. Some trust indicators are present, others are missing. Whether it is safe for your use case depends on which gaps matter to you — review the breakdown below before adopting in production.

Does Treg publish package provenance?

No published build provenance is currently detected for Treg. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.

Does Treg have an OpenSSF Scorecard?

Treg has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 7.2/10. 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 Treg actively maintained?

Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).

What license does Treg use?

Treg ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.

Are Treg's commits signed?

27% of the last 100 commits to Treg 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.

AI agent surface

MCP, providers, tool surface

Scored in HVTrust

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.

External Service Dependencies

high confidence

3 detected

Public provider/service dependencies detected.

Credential signal: API keys or service config markers documented.

Tool / Plugin Surface

high confidence

Declared

Declared plugin/integration surface detected.

database

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

Package Provenance Drift

high confidence

Match

Published package metadata matches the tracked repo

Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.

MCP signal live
External deps live
Tool / plugin surface live
Package provenance drift live

Maintain Treg?

For maintainers

HVTrust scores Treg 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.

Submit a correction → Add the trust badge

Reputation Timeline

Signal history

2026-11-15

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 21 spots (#331 → #352)

2026-11-12

Rank Moved

Rank rose 13 spots (#341 → #328)

2026-11-08

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 24 spots (#318 → #342)

2026-11-02

Rank Moved

Rank rose 10 spots (#329 → #319)

2026-10-30

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 27 spots (#305 → #332)

2026-10-27

Rank Moved

Rank rose 13 spots (#314 → #301)

2026-10-23

Rank Moved

Rank rose 31 spots (#345 → #314)

2026-10-18

Rank Moved

Rank rose 25 spots (#374 → #349)

2026-10-15

Rank Moved

Rank dropped 10 spots (#370 → #380)

2026-10-07

Rank Moved

Rank rose 12 spots (#395 → #383)

2026-10-04

Scorecard Added

OSSF Scorecard: 6.1/10

2026-10-04

Grade Changed

Trust grade D → B

2026-10-04

Rank Moved

Rank rose 833 spots (#1226 → #393)

2026-10-04

HVTrust Changed

HVTrust up 30.6pts (37.3 → 67.9)

2026-09-29

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #1216

GitHub → Website → PyPI: tools-registry

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

For maintainers

Markdown:
            [![HVTrust](https://hvtracker.net/badge/treg.svg)](https://hvtracker.net/agents/treg)
            
HTML:
            <a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/treg"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/treg.svg" alt="HVTrust"></a>

Other agents in Protocols & Tool Integration

Data sources
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 v4.4 · Raw JSON

Treg

How Treg could raise its score

Chain of custody

Source Partly signed

Review and release Strong

Published packages Linked, not attested

What you install today No known advisories

Changes to this chain

Evidence behind this score

Verify this score yourself

What this score doesn’t check

How Treg compares in Protocols & Tool Integration

Where the 71.4 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the Protocols & Tool Integration average

Quick Trust Read

Rank Trend

Activity & Reach

Analysis

Activity Inputs

Common questions about Treg

AI agent surface

Maintain Treg?

Reputation Timeline

Embed Badge Badge guide for maintainers →

Other agents in Protocols & Tool Integration