Registry › Compare › agent-device vs Browser Harness

agent-device vs Browser Harness

Both are Grade A and 1.7 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. agent-device leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency; Browser Harness leads on adoption.

A agent-device 91.8

Mobile app automation and verification for AI coding agents. CLI, MCP server, and typed Node.js API for iOS, Android, HarmonyOS, TV, web, macOS, and Linux.

callstack/agent-device · #12 overall · #1 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose agent-device if supply-chain integrity and transparency matter most.

+4.1Safety / Integrity: 97% of recent commits signed, against 31%
+0.5Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.5 against 5.9

A Browser Harness 90.1

Browser Harness | Self-healing harness that enables LLMs to complete any task.

browser-use/browser-harness · #24 overall · #4 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Browser Harness if adoption matters most.

+2.3Adoption: 1.5M weekly downloads against 291k

Where they differ

20.5

Safety / Integrityagent-device +4.1

16.4

14.0

Transparencyagent-device +0.5

13.5

20.0

Maintenanceagent-device +0.1

19.9

16.2

AdoptionBrowser Harness +2.3

18.5

+3.1

Runtime calibrationBrowser Harness +0.7

+3.8

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of agent-device and Browser Harness, 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-devicecallstack/agent-device	Browser Harnessbrowser-use/browser-harness
HVTrust score	91.8	90.1
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	B
Overall rank	#12	#24
Rank in Browser & Computer Use	#1	#4
GitHub stars	5.0k	18.4k
Last updated	today	1d ago
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	6.5 / 10	5.9 / 10
License	MIT	MIT
Downloads	291k/wk	1.5M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	20.5	16.4
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	14.0	13.5
Maintenance / 20	20.0	19.9
Adoption / 20	16.2	18.5
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	—	1 — Anthropic
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	plugins	plugins
Provenance drift	Match	Match

Open in the live compare tool → agent-device profile Browser Harness 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 →