Registry › Compare › Agent Browser vs Skyvern

Agent Browser vs Skyvern

Both are Grade A and 0.7 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Agent Browser leads on adoption; Skyvern leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency, and rests on broader evidence. Note: Agent Browser's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

A Agent Browser 87.7

Browser automation CLI for AI agents

vercel-labs/agent-browser · #48 overall · #7 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Agent Browser if adoption matters most.

+4.9Adoption: 2.1M weekly downloads against 1.6k

A Skyvern 87.0

Automate browser based workflows with AI

Skyvern-AI/skyvern · #60 overall · #8 Browser & Computer Use · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Skyvern if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+3.6Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 7.4 against 4.5
+2.5Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.4 against 4.5
+1.9Maintenance
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

Where they differ

18.1

Safety / IntegritySkyvern +3.6

21.7

12.3

TransparencySkyvern +2.5

14.8

18.1

MaintenanceSkyvern +1.9

20.0

19.6

AdoptionAgent Browser +4.9

14.7

+1.6

Runtime calibrationAgent Browser +3.8

-2.2

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Agent Browser and Skyvern, two Browser & Computer Use projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Agent Browservercel-labs/agent-browser	SkyvernSkyvern-AI/skyvern
HVTrust score	87.7	87.0
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	A
Overall rank	#48	#60
Rank in Browser & Computer Use	#7	#8
GitHub stars	43.8k	23.2k
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	4.5 / 10	7.4 / 10
License	Apache-2.0	AGPL-3.0
Downloads	2.1M/wk	2k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	18.1	21.7
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	12.3	14.8
Maintenance / 20	18.1	20.0
Adoption / 20	19.6	14.7
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	3 — Amazon Bedrock, Browserbase, Redis	5 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, Multi-provider (LiteLLM), …
Requires API keys	Yes	Yes
Plugin surface	plugins	—
Provenance drift	Match	Unknown

Open in the live compare tool → Agent Browser profile Skyvern profile More Browser & Computer Use →

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption, scaled by an evidence-confidence factor. Grade bands: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Signals refresh daily. Full methodology v4.4 →