by eugeniughelbur · MCP Server · ★ 11
Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h
Flagged: sudo usage. 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 | 11 |
| Forks | 6 |
| Language | Python |
| Category | MCP Server |
| License | MIT |
| Quality Score | 70/100 |
| Open Issues | 1 |
| Last Updated | 2026-09-27 |
| Created | 2026-09-20 |
| Platforms | claude-code, codex, mcp, python |
| Est. Tokens | ~18k |
Coding-agent tools on TypeSafe's Jev, measured in public. review-router: caught 13 of 13 CVE fixes a filename rule sent to a quick review. jev-gate: a strict second lock, 0 of 12 dangerous test commands ran where Claude Code's auto mode let 8 run.
Looking for a jev-engineering alternative? If you're comparing jev-engineering 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.
Open-source firewall for AI agents. Policy engine that audits and controls what OpenClaw, Claude Code, Cursor,
Governance gateway for AI agents — bounded, auditable, session-aware control with MCP proxy, shell proxy & HTT
Security scanner for AI agents and software supply chains. Detects prompt injection, MCP risks, tool poisoning
The open-source AI agent control plane and software factory: govern every tool and model call.
Stops AI coding agents from claiming work is done without evidence. Deterministic hooks decide, TypeSafe's Jev
Self-hosted browser workspace to run coding agents in parallel, steer work as it runs, review diffs, and ship.
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: