io.github.gulmezeren2-byte/ihalent
version 0.3.0
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/gulmezeren2-byte/ihalent
- transport stdio
- files read 12
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
100
100measured on 85% of this axis
46
79measured on 90% of this axis
46
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
1 tool registration site(s) detected, but tools are registered inside a loop, so that is a lower bound on how many the server exposes and `03` §4's threshold of 3 cannot be applied
Dependency Health
- uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4145
transitive, CVSS 9.1, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4145 - uv.lockmcp 1.28.1 — GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv
direct, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 1.30.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv - uv.lockcryptography 49.0.0 — PYSEC-2026-3552
transitive, CVSS 8.2, fixed in 50.0.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-3552 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4183
transitive, CVSS 8.2, fixed in 2.15.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4183 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4143
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4143 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4144
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4144 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4149
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4149 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4150
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4150 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4151
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4151 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4146
transitive, CVSS 6.5
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4146 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4152
transitive, CVSS 5.9, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4152 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4140
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4140 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4141
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.15.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4141 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4142
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4142 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4147
transitive, CVSS 4.8, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4147 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4148
transitive, CVSS 4.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4148
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 73 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
lifetime median (1 issue(s) in the last 6 months, under `03` §5's floor of 3): 6.5 day(s) to first maintainer comment
- release_cadence
median release gap 6 days (by releases), last release 79 day(s) ago
- bus_factor
sole maintainer
- 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), exposed tools or resources enumerated (+30)
- declared_scopes
neither the README nor the MCP manifest documents what the server accesses or what side effects it has
- changelog
CHANGELOG.md present
- 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.