Registry › Compare › ASM vs Obsidian Second Brain

ASM vs Obsidian Second Brain

Obsidian Second Brain leads on trust: 65.5/100 (Grade B) against 62.6/100 (Grade C), a 2.9-point gap. Obsidian Second Brain leads on maintenance and adoption.

C ASM 62.6

The universal skill manager for AI coding agents.

luongnv89/asm · #628 overall · #4 Needs review · coverage C (2/5)

ASM doesn't lead on any scored dimension in this pair.

B Obsidian Second Brain 65.5

Persistent memory for Claude Code, Codex and 6 other AI agents, stored as plain markdown in your Obsidian vault. New: Crew, one shared logbook so Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Grok Bot know what each other did. 48 commands: semantic search, self-rewriting notes, key-less research, scheduled agents.

eugeniughelbur/obsidian-second-brain · #514 overall · #2 Needs review · coverage C (2/5)

Choose Obsidian Second Brain if maintenance and adoption matter most.

+1.7Adoption: 5.3k GitHub stars against 974
+1.6Maintenance
+1.0Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 7.4 against 6.3
+0.9Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.4 against 6.3

Where they differ

12.4

Safety / IntegrityObsidian Second Brain +1.0

13.4

13.9

TransparencyObsidian Second Brain +0.9

14.8

18.3

MaintenanceObsidian Second Brain +1.6

19.9

7.2

AdoptionObsidian Second Brain +1.7

8.9

+0.0

Runtime calibrationASM +2.3

-2.3

1 dimension identical: Identity 10.8 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of ASM and Obsidian Second Brain, two Needs review projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	ASMluongnv89/asm	Obsidian Second Braineugeniughelbur/obsidian-second-brain
HVTrust score	62.6	65.5
Evidence grade	C	B
Coverage grade	C	C
Overall rank	#628	#514
Rank in Needs review	#4	#2
GitHub stars	974	5.3k
Last updated	1d ago	1d ago
Build provenance	No	No
OSSF Scorecard	6.3 / 10	7.4 / 10
License	MIT	MIT
Downloads	—	—
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	12.4	13.4
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	10.8
Transparency / 17	13.9	14.8
Maintenance / 20	18.3	19.9
Adoption / 20	7.2	8.9
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	—	Implemented
External providers	—	8 — Anthropic, Firecrawl, Google Gemini, …
Requires API keys	No	Yes
Plugin surface	—	plugins
Provenance drift	—	—

Open in the live compare tool → ASM profile Obsidian Second Brain profile More Needs review →

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 →