Working Activity
Lively Working-line extension for pi CLI and DSH
Is Working Activity safe? Thin or incomplete trust evidence. Review carefully before production use.
Compare Working Activity
How does it stack up against its Agent Skills neighbours?
Pick any agent to compare →In detail: Working Activity scores 47.6/100 (Grade D), ranked #262 of 359 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 2.3/10; 4% of recent commits are signed; last pushed 2026-09-26. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
How Working Activity 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 2.3 to 9.0lowest checks: Branch-Protection 0, CI-Tests 0, CII-Best-Practices 0 +13.9 → 61.5 C · #87 of 359
- Sign every commit4% signed today +4.8 → 52.4 C · #210 of 359
Chain of custody
Scanners check what the code says. This traces who ships Working Activity 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/ccch1mneyyy/working-activity, MIT, last pushed 2026-09-26. 4% of the last 100 commits carry a verified signature; the rest can't be tied to a verified identity.
-
Review and release Weak
OpenSSF Scorecard rates the repository's practices 2.3/10 (scanned Sep 17, 2026, refresh pending). The checks that decide who can get a change released:
- Code Review0
- Branch Protection0
- Signed Releasesn/a
- Dangerous Workflown/a
- Token Permissionsn/a
- Pinned Dependenciesn/a
All 18 Scorecard checks
Binary-Artifacts 10Branch-Protection 0CI-Tests 0CII-Best-Practices 0Code-Review 0Contributors 0Dangerous-Workflow -1Dependency-Update-Tool 0Fuzzing 0License 10Maintained 0Packaging -1Pinned-Dependencies -1SAST 0Security-Policy 0Signed-Releases -1Token-Permissions -1Vulnerabilities 8 -
Published packages None
No registry package. Working Activity is used from its repository, so what you run is whatever you check out: pin a release tag or commit.
Changes to this chain
- 2026-08-27 OSSF Scorecard: 2.6/10
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 Working Activity’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 Working Activity compares in Agent Skills
- #260 Opengap 47.7 +0.1
- #261 Agent Vision Toolkit 47.6 ±0
- #262 Working Activity 47.6 this agent
- #263 Dashi Ppt Skill 47.5 −0.1
- #264 Autoresearch 47.4 −0.2
Bars show each HVTrust score; the tick marks Working Activity’s 47.6.
Where the 47.6 comes from
HVTrust dimensions vs the Agent Skills average
47.6 / 100 · 100.0% confidenceWorking Activity Agent Skills average (359 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
69.6 / 100Common questions about Working Activity
Does Working Activity publish package provenance?
Does Working Activity have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Is Working Activity actively maintained?
What license does Working Activity use?
Are Working Activity'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 Working Activity'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 Working Activity?
For maintainers
HVTrust scores Working Activity 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/working-activity)
<a href="https://hvtracker.net/agents/working-activity"><img src="https://hvtracker.net/badge/working-activity.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