Treg has an HVTrust score of 37.5/100 (Grade D), ranked #1213 of 1343 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 37.5/100 on HVTracker's evidence-weighted HVTrust scale. It has 3.8k 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? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.

OSSF Scorecard No result

Provenance None

Signed commits 31%

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 37.5/100 (Grade D), ranked #1213 of 1343 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage C (2 of 5 independent signal types). The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found; no OSSF Scorecard result yet; 31% of recent commits are signed; no published advisory affects its latest release (tools-registry); last pushed 2026-09-29. 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.

Raise the OSSF Scorecard to 9.0no OSSF Scorecard result yet +36.8 → 74.3 B · #11 of 62
Publish build provenance for its packagesPyPI Trusted Publishing attestations +32.6 → 70.1 B · #13 of 62
Sign every commit31% signed today +2.2 → 39.7 D · #57 of 62

Already done? Suggest a correction Add the trust badge

How Treg compares in Protocols & Tool Integration

Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Treg’s 37.5.

Where the 37.5 comes from

HVTrust dimensions vs the Protocols & Tool Integration average

37.5 / 100 · 67.0% confidence

Treg Protocols & Tool Integration average (62 agents)

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

1.6 / 25

8.8 below avg 10.4

Identity / Provenance60% listing status · 40% build provenance

10.8 / 18

0.8 below avg 11.6

Transparency50% declared license · 50% OSSF Scorecard

8.5 / 17

4.4 below avg 12.9

Maintenance60% last-push freshness · 40% commit activity

20.0 / 20

5.9 above avg 14.1

AdoptionLog-scaled stars · package downloads

13.2 / 20

2.5 above avg 10.7

Quick Trust Read

What Would Improve It

Add or improve OSSF Scorecard coverage so safety checks are easier to verify.

Recent Changes

2026-09-29

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #1213

Maintainer Checklist

Add Scorecard coverage Expose the repository to OpenSSF Scorecard checks so supply-chain posture is easier to verify.

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 Get email alerts for Treg View Protocols & Tool Integration Report missing data

83.1

Activity sub-score · out of 100

#57

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 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 →

Activity & Reach

Stars

3.8k

Forks

312

Last Push

2026-09-29

today

Commits (4 wk)

1302

Downloads (7d)

2,886

pypi

HN mentions (30d)

—

Open Issues

Rank Change

NEW

Analysis

Activity Inputs

83.1 / 100

StarsRepository reach

21.5 / 30

FreshnessLast push recency

25.0 / 25

ActivityRecent commits

25 / 25

CommunityFork signal

11.6 / 20

Supply Chain Trust

Package Provenance

None

No package attestations found

OSSF Scorecard

—

Not available

Signed Commits

31%

of last 100 commits verified

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.

Public trust evidence for Treg 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 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?

No OpenSSF Scorecard data is currently published for Treg. 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 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?

31% 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

2026-09-29

Newly Listed

First tracked at rank #1213

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)
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v4.4 · Raw JSON