by TheStack-ai · MCP Server · ★ 3
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 | 3 |
| Forks | 2 |
| Language | TypeScript |
| Category | MCP Server |
| License | MIT |
| Quality Score | 52/100 |
| Open Issues | 6 |
| Last Updated | 2026-06-30 |
| Created | 2026-04-08 |
| Platforms | claude-code, cli, codex, mcp, node |
| Est. Tokens | ~13k |
Open-source memory CLI for Claude Code, Codex & MCP — local-first SQLite, graph-aware recall, review gate. npm i -g waypath
Looking for a waypath alternative? If you're comparing waypath with other mcp server tools, these 6 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
Persistent long-term memory for Claude Code via MCP — captures coding decisions, bugfixes, and context across
Governance gateway for AI agents — bounded, auditable, session-aware control with MCP proxy, shell proxy & HTT
Local-first AI knowledge layer. Extract architecture, query from any AI tool via MCP. Private by architecture.
A toolkit that makes Claude Code better at engineering — session memory, dependency analysis, large file navig
🏛 [UNDER CONSTRUCTION] A (roman) claude plugin marketplace
Local citation-backed recall for Pi, OMP, Claude Code, Codex, and ChatGPT history.
Explore other popular mcp server 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: