by nexibeo · MCP Server · ★ 5
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 | 0 |
| Language | JavaScript |
| Category | MCP Server |
| Quality Score | 65/100 |
| Last Updated | 2026-10-08 |
| Created | 2026-09-19 |
| Platforms | browser, claude-code, cli, codex, mcp, node |
| Est. Tokens | ~16k |
Let Claude code, chatgpt codex or control your own Chrome. Chrome extension + MCP server: Jev, TypeSafe's decision model, picks each click in ~0.5 s for a fraction of a cent. MIT, bring your own OpenRouter key.
Looking for a jev-browser-control alternative? If you're comparing jev-browser-control 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.
MCP server + Chrome extension that gives AI agents control of your real browser with existing sessions and log
Anti-detection browser MCP server for AI agents — navigate, interact, and automate the web without getting blo
An unofficial local visualizer for Jev (TypeSafe): a live view of every call your code makes. Not affiliated w
any llm browsing for you in chrome
Governance gateway for AI agents — bounded, auditable, session-aware control with MCP proxy, shell proxy & HTT
Enable Claude in Chrome extension to work with alternative Chromium-based browsers (Brave, Arc, Vivaldi, Edge,
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: