Registry › Compare › DvalinCode vs Guardrails AI

DvalinCode vs Guardrails AI

DvalinCode leads on trust: 83.4/100 (Grade A) against 76.6/100 (Grade B), a 6.8-point gap. DvalinCode leads on transparency and maintenance; Guardrails AI leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence. Note: DvalinCode's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.

A DvalinCode 83.4

Independent security verification for code written by humans and AI agents. Scan, repair, then prove it — Dvalin runs your project's own checks and issues a Verified Fix Record anyone can re-derive offline. Local-first, policy-bound, MIT.

arthurpanhku/dvalincode · #127 overall · #4 Security & Guardrails · coverage B (3/5)

Choose DvalinCode if transparency and maintenance matter most.

+7.0Maintenance: last push 1d ago, against 5d ago
+0.7Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 6.8 against 6.0

B Guardrails AI 76.6

Adding guardrails to large language models.

guardrails-ai/guardrails · #243 overall · #5 Security & Guardrails · coverage A (4/5)

Choose Guardrails AI if adoption matters most.

+7.5Adoption: 30.6k weekly downloads against 135
A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3

Where they differ

19.9

Safety / IntegrityGuardrails AI +0.1

20.0

14.3

TransparencyDvalinCode +0.7

13.6

18.7

MaintenanceDvalinCode +7.0

11.7

7.8

AdoptionGuardrails AI +7.5

15.3

+4.7

Runtime calibrationDvalinCode +6.7

-2.0

1 dimension identical: Identity 18.0 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of DvalinCode and Guardrails AI, two Security & Guardrails projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	DvalinCodearthurpanhku/dvalincode	Guardrails AIguardrails-ai/guardrails
HVTrust score	83.4	76.6
Evidence grade	A	B
Coverage grade	B	A
Overall rank	#127	#243
Rank in Security & Guardrails	#4	#5
GitHub stars	120	7.6k
Last updated	1d ago	5d ago
Build provenance	Yes	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	6.8 / 10	6.0 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	135/wk	31k/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	19.9	20.0
Identity & provenance / 18	18.0	18.0
Transparency / 17	14.3	13.6
Maintenance / 20	18.7	11.7
Adoption / 20	7.8	15.3
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	—
External providers	1 — Anthropic	3 — Anthropic, Multi-provider (LiteLLM), OpenAI
Requires API keys	Yes	Yes
Plugin surface	plugins	—
Provenance drift	Match	Unknown

Open in the live compare tool → DvalinCode profile Guardrails AI profile More Security & Guardrails →

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 →