io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck
OCI · GHCR.IO/CLOUDCORPRECORDS/FLOWCHECK · 2 COMPONENTS
Least-privilege auditor for GitHub Actions workflows: permissions, triggers, secrets.
Available components
Last scanned (1 day ago)
Scores higher than 71% of OCI servers
Category CI/CD and DevOps
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 Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
Provenance & Transparency45
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 8 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability82
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 291 tokens (~145/item across 2 items; 2 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management43
- Stability observed for 13 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 2 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 2 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
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
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 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 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 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.
- 31 Oct 26 0
- Provenance: unverified → fail ▼ security
- 30 Oct 26 +1
- Provenance: fail → unverified ▼ security
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
- Package version: 0.1.1 → 0.1.2 functional
- 24 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.
- 23 Oct 26 0
- Package version: 0.1.0 → 0.1.1 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 4 Nov 2026 · Analysed oci/ghcr.io/cloudcorprecords/flowcheck@0.1.2
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | oci |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
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 →
audit_workflows ~160
Audit GitHub workflow files under a repo path for least-privilege problems: missing or write-all permissions, per-job grants broader than the job's steps need, pull_request_target or workflow_run or issue_comment triggers combined with a checkout of the PR head, secrets in fork-reachable contexts, secrets: inherit to reusable workflows, self-hosted runners on PR triggers, cache poisoning surface, whole-workspace artifact uploads, missing timeouts, and missing concurrency guards on deploy-shaped jobs. Returns a HARDENED, REVIEW, or EXPOSED verdict with file, job, and line evidence per finding, plus a hardened permissions plan per job.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | string | yes | Repo root, a .github/workflows directory, or a single workflow file |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
harden_plan ~131
Build the least-privilege hardening plan for workflows under a repo path without writing any files. For each job, infers the permissions its steps actually need (checkout is contents: read, release creation is contents: write, GHCR push is packages: write, PR comments are pull-requests: write, and so on) and returns a paste-ready permissions block per job plus a top-level union block, with notes where a grant is removed or a privileged trigger shape needs a human decision.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | string | yes | Repo root, a .github/workflows directory, or a single workflow file |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck MCP server?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/cloudcorprecords/flowcheck:0.1.2. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 3 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
oci · ghcr.io/cloudcorprecords/flowcheck
claude mcp add cloudcorprecords-flowcheck -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/cloudcorprecords/flowcheck:0.1.2
What is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck MCP server?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck. Least-privilege auditor for GitHub Actions workflows: permissions, triggers, secrets. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/cloudcorprecords/flowcheck).
Is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck MCP server safe to use?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck scores 48 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. 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 io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck MCP server expose?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck exposes 2 tools: audit_workflows, harden_plan. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 291 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck MCP server still maintained?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 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 io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck MCP server under?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/flowcheck declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.