How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade B reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-06-04 20:01 UTC·Repo last pushed yesterday
Rank Trend
2026-06-022026-06-04
Activity & Reach
Stars
40.2k
Forks
4.4k
Last Push
2026-06-03
yesterday
Commits (4 wk)
79
Downloads (7d)
4,171,544
pypi
HN mentions (30d)
48
Open Issues
272
Rank Change
▼5
was #56
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
71.3 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
7.5 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
13.6 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
19.5 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
19.9 / 20
Activity Inputs
93.2 / 100
StarsRepository reach
27.6 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.9 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
23.7 / 25
CommunityFork signal
16.9 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
6.0 / 10
via deps.dev · OpenSSF
Signed Commits
0%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection3
CI-Tests-1
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review9
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool0
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies2
SAST0
Security-Policy9
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities10
Is FAISS safe?
FAISS has a mixed signal profile. Some trust indicators are present, others are missing. Whether it is safe for your use case depends on which gaps matter to you — review the breakdown below before adopting in production.
Does FAISS publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for FAISS. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does FAISS have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
FAISS has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.0/10. The Scorecard checks for branch protection, signed releases, dependency updates, fuzzing, code review, and other supply-chain hygiene items. See the full check breakdown on this page.
Is FAISS actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does FAISS use?
FAISS ships under MIT. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are FAISS's commits signed?
0% of the last 100 commits to FAISS are verified-signed (GPG, SSH, S/MIME, or GitHub's signing flow). Signed commits help confirm that code was authored by who the commit claims.
Not a safety endorsement. HVTracker describes what public signals show, not whether a project is safe for your use case. Run your own security review before adopting in production.
Runtime trust — coming soon
HVTrust currently scores supply-chain signals. We're adding runtime trust next: what an agent actually does when it runs — what it can reach, which tools it carries, what external services it depends on. Track progress on the roadmap →
MCP support
Tool / plugin surface
External service deps
Package provenance drift
Maintain FAISS?
HVTrust scores FAISS from public signals only — we never contact maintainers first. If a signal is wrong, stale, or missing (provenance you publish, a Scorecard you run, signed releases), tell us and we'll review it. Corrections are public and tracked on GitHub.
