Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h
None of the 42 rules matched — no credential harvesting, no data exfiltration, no curl-pipe-shell installer. Scanned against 42 published rules built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, refreshed every 8 hours. Full audit →
The quality score combines nine heuristic checks of the repo and its README: completeness, clarity, specificity, examples, structure, agent readiness, step-by-step content, instruction quality and security notes. It rates how well the project explains itself to an agent, not the code.
| Stars | 5 |
| Forks | 1 |
| Language | Python |
| Category | AI Tool |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Quality Score | 68/100 |
| Open Issues | 3 |
| Last Updated | 2026-10-17 |
| Created | 2026-09-19 |
| Platforms | python |
| Est. Tokens | ~16k |
Catch breaking API behavior hidden in OpenAPI prose with deterministic checks and TypeSafe JEV System One semantic review.
Looking for a jev-oas-sentinel alternative? If you're comparing jev-oas-sentinel with other ai tool tools, these 6 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
The deterministic merge gate for AI-generated agent capability changes — a local-first, static Tool-Use Readin
Jev / TypeSafe System One 中文精选列表：官方资料、SDK、爆款应用、Agent 工具、开源复现与独立评测，附中文上手指南，每日自动收录 GitHub 热门项目。
AI-powered code quality analysis using MCP to help AI assistants review code more effectively. Analyze git cha
A sandbox for the third-party APIs you depend on. Built from the provider's spec, it fails on purpose, and it
Open-source alternative to TypeSafe's Jev: a System One style model layer that gives typed, calibrated decisio
The OpenAPI-MCP proxy translates OpenAPI specs into MCP tools, enabling AI agents to access external APIs with
Explore other popular ai tool tools:
Grades come from a rule-based scan built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy: 42 published rules, covering credential harvesting, data exfiltration, curl | sh installers and more. It is a first-layer scan, not a manual audit — we say so rather than overstate it.
The scale of the problem is documented independently: Liu et al. (2026), in a study of 31,132 agent skills, report that 26.1% contain security vulnerabilities. Our own full-catalog census is published as a citable open dataset.
Sources & who's responsible: