How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade C reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-06-04 20:15 UTC·Repo last pushed yesterday
Rank Trend
2026-05-252026-06-04
Activity & Reach
Stars
4.2k
Forks
735
Last Push
2026-06-03
yesterday
Commits (4 wk)
6?
Downloads (7d)
—
HN mentions (30d)
1
Open Issues
65
Rank Change
▼10
was #128
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
54.0 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
7.4 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
13.5 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
13.6 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
8.7 / 20
Activity Inputs
70.5 / 100
StarsRepository reach
21.7 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.9 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
10.5 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.3 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
5.9 / 10
via deps.dev · OpenSSF
Signed Commits
1%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection3
CI-Tests-1
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review10
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing10
License9
Maintained10
Packaging-1
Pinned-Dependencies2
SAST0
Security-Policy0
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities0
Is Llama Guard safe?
Public trust evidence for Llama Guard is thin: several supply-chain signals are missing or weak. This does not mean the project is unsafe — it means an outside observer cannot easily verify the usual integrity checks. Treat with extra scrutiny.
Does Llama Guard publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for Llama Guard. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does Llama Guard have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
Llama Guard has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 5.9/10. 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 Llama Guard actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does Llama Guard use?
Llama Guard ships under NOASSERTION. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are Llama Guard's commits signed?
1% of the last 100 commits to Llama Guard 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 Llama Guard?
HVTrust scores Llama Guard 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.
Data sources
GitHub REST API (repo, commits, stars, forks, license) · OSSF Scorecard via deps.dev · Algolia HN Search API
Each agent's signals refresh once daily across 6 staggered batches. Methodology v3.1 · Raw JSON
