io.github.brain-bbqs/neuro
version 1.0.0
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/brain-bbqs/NeuroMCP
- transport stdio
- files read 16
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
100
100measured on 85% of this axis
not assessed
no lockfile in the fetched source; dependency versions are unresolved, so no vulnerability can be attributed
not assessed
this server's declared repository could not be read through the GitHub API, so `03` §5's maintenance signals were not retrieved — note that a private repository and an absent one are indistinguishable from outside
35
The evidence
Every deduction below names the artefact that produced it. Nothing on this page was executed: the source was read, never run, and no running server was contacted.
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
stdio transport: the client launches the server as a subprocess, so the OS process boundary is the auth boundary — `03` §4 does not penalise absent auth here
- transport_security
declared transport: stdio — launched as a subprocess by the client, so the security boundary is the client process, not a network port (`03` §4)
- secret_handling
no committed credential found, and no environment variable with a credential-shaped name is read anywhere in the source
- authorization_granularity
14 tool registrations and no conditional access logic found — `03` §4 calls this case 'needs human review' and assigns it no score band, so it is not scored here
Maintenance
- recency
no last-commit date was retrieved for this repository
- issue_responsiveness
no issue-response median was retrieved. An unanswered issue scores 0 under `03` §5, but an absent measurement is not an unanswered issue.
- release_cadence
no release history was retrieved for this repository
- bus_factor
no contributor history was retrieved for this repository
- repository_signals
`03` §5 scores this by quartile WITHIN the server's category, which needs a distribution across every scanned server and so cannot be computed while scanning one. It is a post-pass over the crawl and that pass does not exist yet.
Transparency
- license
LICENSE present with no SPDX-License-Identifier tag; identified as 'MIT' from its text
- readme_quality
README.md: installation instructions (+25), configuration documented (+25), states what the server does in the first 200 words (+20)
- declared_scopes
neither the README nor the MCP manifest documents what the server accesses or what side effects it has
- changelog
no CHANGELOG in the fetched source. `03` §7's partial credit for tagged releases carrying release notes is not applied here — that needs the forge API, which this check does not call
- security_contact
no SECURITY.md and no disclosure contact in the README, so a finder has no route to report a vulnerability privately
Contest a finding
Every number here comes from a rule reading published source, and rules get things wrong. If something on this page is incorrect — or correct but mitigated by a check the rule cannot see — open an issue and we answer it in writing. A finding we got wrong is removed and the rule is fixed; one that stands is answered on the record.
Anyone can file: the maintainer, a researcher who disagrees with the classification, or a user who tested the server and could not reproduce it. Name this server and the rule or advisory ID shown beside the finding above. We aim to reply within five business days and to resolve within ten.