Trust and health report

reasoning-from-scratch - trust report

Sourced, dated trust signals - maintenance label posture, repository provenance, and security scan status. Not a composite safety grade.

GraphCanon updated 4d · GitHub synced 4d

Maintenance

Recency and activity heuristics from public GitHub metadata (maintenance label, momentum); methodology: github_public_v1.

Active82% signal

last push 12d ago · last release 3mo

+252 stars (30d) · 0 open issues (30d)

Provenance

Repository identity and fork provenance (github_public_v1).

  • GitHub repo id: 942696497
  • Not a fork
  • Personal account
  • Computed 4d

Security intelligence

Source-by-source security scan results from public intelligence providers. Missing, partial, or failed queries are shown explicitly and are not treated as clean.

OSV dependency advisories

Published findings
Last query
1mo
Scanner
osv@v1
Stored findings
15
View source evidence

deps.dev advisories

Not queried
Scanner
deps.dev@v1
View source evidence

OpenSSF Scorecard

Not queried
Scanner
openssf-scorecard@v1

Weekly public scans omit some checks at scale.

View source evidence

Dependency advisories (deduplicated)

GHSA-5rjg-fvgr-3xxf
setuptools@61.0 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
GHSA-cx63-2mw6-8hw5
setuptools@61.0 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
GHSA-r9hx-vwmv-q579
setuptools@61.0 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
PYSEC-2022-43012
setuptools@61.0 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
PYSEC-2025-49
setuptools@61.0 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
PYSEC-2026-1918
setuptools@61.0 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
GHSA-887c-mr87-cxwp
torch@2.7.1 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
GHSA-qfhq-4f3w-5fph
torch@2.7.1 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
GHSA-rrmf-rvhw-rf47
torch@2.7.1 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
GHSA-vgrw-7cvw-pwgx
torch@2.7.1 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
PYSEC-2025-203
torch@2.7.1 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
PYSEC-2025-204
torch@2.7.1 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
PYSEC-2025-206
torch@2.7.1 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
PYSEC-2026-139
torch@2.7.1 · osv@v1
requirements.txt
PYSEC-2026-1970
torch@2.7.1 · osv@v1
requirements.txt

Method and caveats: these are sourced, dated heuristics from public GitHub data and external security intelligence providers. A status like "no published findings from this source" is not a guarantee of safety. Read the full trust methodology · JSON report at /api/graphcanon/tools/rasbt-reasoning-from-scratch/trust.

Common questions

Is reasoning-from-scratch maintained?
GraphCanon rates reasoning-from-scratch "Active" (82% maintenance signal from public GitHub metadata, computed 4d). Last push was 12 days ago. This is a recency heuristic, not a guarantee the project will stay maintained.
Is reasoning-from-scratch safe to use?
Last scanned 1mo (deps profile). Status: 15 low - 15 low finding(s) in the latest scan. GraphCanon does not claim the project is safe or vulnerability-free; review findings on the trust report. GraphCanon does not certify reasoning-from-scratch as safe - review maintenance, provenance, and scan findings on this page before adopting.
Is reasoning-from-scratch a fork?
No. reasoning-from-scratch is not flagged as a fork in GitHub metadata at the time of the last refresh.
Does reasoning-from-scratch have known security vulnerabilities?
Last scanned 1mo (deps profile). Status: 15 low - 15 low finding(s) in the latest scan. GraphCanon does not claim the project is safe or vulnerability-free; review findings on the trust report.
How often is the reasoning-from-scratch trust report updated?
Trust signals refresh on GitHub ingest/refresh cycles and optional dependency/MCP scans. This report was computed 4d (methodology github_public_v1).
What does GraphCanon never claim about reasoning-from-scratch?
We never publish a composite safety grade, pen-test endorsement, or "verified secure" label for reasoning-from-scratch. Signals are sourced heuristics with explicit limits - see trust methodology.
How does GraphCanon assess trust for reasoning-from-scratch?
Signals are sourced from public GitHub metadata and optional dependency/MCP manifest scans, each tagged with methodology version and computed date. GraphCanon does not publish a composite safety grade. Read trust methodology for full scope and limits.

Was this helpful?

Anonymous feedback helps us improve pages and translations.