Registry › Compare › Browser Harness vs Skyvern

Browser Harness vs Skyvern

Both are Grade A and 4.5 points apart, so choose on what you weigh most. Browser Harness leads on adoption; Skyvern leads on supply-chain integrity and transparency, and rests on broader evidence. Note: Browser Harness's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

A Browser Harness 91.0

Let Claude Code, Codex or Cursor use your real Chrome, logged in as you. One prompt to set up. Open source, MIT.

browser-use/browser-harness · #17 overall · #2 Browser & Computer Use · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Browser Harness if adoption matters most.

+4.4Adoption: 3.3M weekly downloads against 1k

A Skyvern 86.5

Automate browser based workflows with AI

Skyvern-AI/skyvern · #78 overall · #8 Browser & Computer Use · coverage A (4/5)

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

+4.6Safety / Integrity: 100% of recent commits signed, against 38%
+1.0Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 7.3 against 6.1
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

Where they differ

17.0

Safety / IntegritySkyvern +4.6

21.6

13.7

TransparencySkyvern +1.0

14.7

18.9

AdoptionBrowser Harness +4.4

14.5

+3.5

Runtime calibrationBrowser Harness +5.7

-2.2

2 dimensions identical: Identity 18.0 · Maintenance 19.9 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Browser Harness 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	Browser Harnessbrowser-use/browser-harness	SkyvernSkyvern-AI/skyvern
HVTrust score	91.0	86.5
Evidence grade	A	A
Coverage grade	B	A
Overall rank	#17	#78
Rank in Browser & Computer Use	#2	#8
GitHub stars	18.8k	23.3k
Last updated	1d ago	1d ago
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	6.1 / 10	7.3 / 10
License	MIT	AGPL-3.0
Downloads	3.3M/wk	1k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	17.0	21.6
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.7	14.7
Maintenance / 20	19.9	19.9
Adoption / 20	18.9	14.5
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	1 — Anthropic	5 — Anthropic, Google Gemini, Multi-provider (LiteLLM), …
Requires API keys	No	Yes
Plugin surface	plugins	—
Provenance drift	Match	Unknown

Open in the live compare tool → Browser Harness 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 →