Deputy
PYPI · DEPUTY-CC
Claude Code helper: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash reviews Claude's code for bugs and gives second opinions
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 81% of PyPI servers
Category Developer Tools
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security99
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs hatchling.build at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 3 of 34 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency97
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to alimohammadiamirhossein/deputy). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 9 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability60
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1313 tokens (~218/item across 6 items; 6 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management40
- Stability observed for 12 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 6 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 7 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 1 Nov 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 31 Oct 26 −14
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 29 Oct 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 27 Oct 26 0
- Package version: 0.3.0 → 0.3.1 functional
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- Package version: 0.2.0 → 0.3.0 functional
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed pypi/deputy-cc@0.3.1
Provenance Verified
A signed build attestation was found and verified, binding this exact artifact to the source repository it claims to come from.
| Result | Verified |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | alimohammadiamirhossein/deputy |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/alimohammadiamirhossein/deputy/.github/workflows/release.yml@refs/tags/v0.3.1 |
| Rekor log index | 3501394497 |
| Predicate type | PyPI publish attestation https://docs.pypi.org/attestations/publish/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha256:c115f214fddbb5a445e62701a9c99bd2d217496a1743b61502b135e80138cf45 |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | allowlisted | hatchling.build |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 34 packages
| Packages resolved | 34 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 3 |
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
consult ~235
Brainstorm with a cheaper model: ideas, risks and alternatives you may have missed. Use it when you are unsure between approaches or stuck, not on every task. question: what you are deciding, including your current plan if you have one. context: relevant facts, constraints and what you already ruled out. lenses: up to 4 angles, each answered independently in parallel, for example ["simplest approach", "edge cases and failure modes", "performance"]. my_view: your own conclusion, written BEFORE you see Deputy's ideas. It is not sent to Deputy, so its ideas stay independent; it is echoed back so you can compare honestly. project_dir: absolute path of the project, only if Deputy picked the wrong folder. The answers are UNVERIFIED suggestions from a weaker model. Weigh them below your own analysis, check them against the code, and adopt only what holds up.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | – | – |
| lenses | – | – | – |
| my_view | string | – | – |
| project_dir | string | – | – |
| question | string | yes | – |
| thinking | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
delegate ~196
Hand a well-specified coding task to Deputy. It reads and edits files and runs commands in the workspace on its own, then returns a short report with the files it changed. In accuracy mode, use this only when the user explicitly asks for delegation. task: the goal, scope (files or folders), constraints and acceptance criteria. context: facts Deputy cannot discover itself (decisions made, conventions, error messages). thinking: "high" (default) or "max" for hard tasks. workdir: subfolder of the workspace to treat as the root (default: whole workspace). project_dir: absolute path of the project, only if Deputy picked the wrong folder. Verify the result yourself before relying on it: review the changed files and run tests.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | – | – |
| project_dir | string | – | – |
| task | string | yes | – |
| thinking | – | – | – |
| workdir | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
investigate ~120
Ask Deputy a question that needs a lot of reading: where something is handled, how a flow works, what a large log says. Deputy can only list, read and search files. Returns a compact answer with file:line evidence. Treat it as leads: read the cited lines before acting. project_dir: absolute path of the project, only if Deputy picked the wrong folder.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | – | – |
| project_dir | string | – | – |
| question | string | yes | – |
| thinking | – | – | – |
| workdir | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
review ~279
Have independent cheap reviewers hunt for defects in a change, one per lens, in parallel. Use it for risky or large changes, not routine ones whose tests pass. By default it reviews your uncommitted changes (git diff against HEAD, plus new files). focus: what the change is supposed to do, so reviewers can spot mismatches. diff: the change to review, if you do not want the automatic git diff. base: compare against this revision instead of HEAD (for example "main"). paths: limit the review to these files or folders. lenses: up to 4 review angles; default ["correctness and logic bugs", "edge cases, error handling and missing tests"]. thinking: leave it out for a fast review (low thinking by default); "high" or "max" think longer, for an especially risky change. project_dir: absolute path of the project, only if Deputy picked the wrong folder. Findings are UNVERIFIED and may be false positives. Verify each against the code; fix only what you confirm, and tell the user which findings you rejected and why.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | string | – | – |
| diff | string | – | – |
| focus | string | – | – |
| lenses | – | – | – |
| paths | – | – | – |
| project_dir | string | – | – |
| thinking | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
stats ~39
Show roughly how many tokens and how much money Deputy saved: this session, today, the last 7 days and all time. Makes no network calls.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
status ~52
Show Deputy's mode, model, thinking level, workspace, whether a key is set, and what this session has spent and saved. Makes no network calls to the model provider.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_dir | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Deputy MCP server?
Deputy runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx deputy-cc. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · deputy-cc
claude mcp add alimohammadiamirhossein-deputy -- uvx deputy-cc
What is the Deputy MCP server?
Deputy is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.alimohammadiamirhossein/deputy. Claude Code helper: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash reviews Claude's code for bugs and gives second opinions. This page covers its PyPI package (deputy-cc).
Is the Deputy MCP server safe to use?
Deputy scores 81 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 5 November 2026. Its build provenance is signed and verified. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Deputy MCP server expose?
Deputy exposes 6 tools: consult, review, investigate, delegate, stats, status. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 921 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Deputy MCP server still maintained?
Deputy is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the Deputy MCP server under?
Deputy declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.