Registry › Compare › PentAGI vs REA

PentAGI vs REA

REA leads on trust: 79.2/100 (Grade B) against 57.5/100 (Grade C), a 21.7-point gap. PentAGI leads on adoption and transparency; REA leads on provenance and maintenance, and rests on broader evidence.

C PentAGI 57.5

Fully autonomous AI Agents system capable of performing complex penetration testing tasks

vxcontrol/pentagi · #710 overall · #8 Security & Guardrails · coverage C (2/5)

Choose PentAGI if adoption and transparency matter most.

+1.4Adoption: 25.1k GitHub stars against 422
+0.7Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 5.6 against 4.8

B REA 79.2

Reverse engineer anything with agents, from app behavior down to native binaries.

morluto/rea · #161 overall · #3 Security & Guardrails · coverage B (3/5)

Choose REA if provenance and maintenance matter most.

+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
+6.8Maintenance
+1.8Safety / Integrity: package provenance attested, against none
B vs CEvidence coverage: 3 of 5 independent signal types, against 2

Where they differ

11.9

Safety / IntegrityREA +1.8

13.7

10.8

Identity / ProvenanceREA +7.2

18.0

13.3

TransparencyPentAGI +0.7

12.6

13.2

MaintenanceREA +6.8

20.0

10.6

AdoptionPentAGI +1.4

9.2

-2.3

Runtime calibrationREA +8.0

+5.7

Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of PentAGI and REA, 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	PentAGIvxcontrol/pentagi	REAmorluto/rea
HVTrust score	57.5	79.2
Evidence grade	C	B
Coverage grade	C	B
Overall rank	#710	#161
Rank in Security & Guardrails	#8	#3
GitHub stars	25.1k	422
Last updated	today	today
Build provenance	No	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	5.6 / 10	4.8 / 10
License	MIT	MIT
Downloads	—	142/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	11.9	13.7
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.3	12.6
Maintenance / 20	13.2	20.0
Adoption / 20	10.6	9.2
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	7 — Anthropic, DeepSeek, Firecrawl, …	—
Requires API keys	Yes	No
Plugin surface	plugins	—
Provenance drift	—	Match

Open in the live compare tool → PentAGI profile REA 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 →