io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight
NPM · @RENETURCIOS/GREENLIGHT
Pre-flight checks for open-source contributions: is this GitHub issue actually landable?
Available components
Last scanned (2 hours ago)
Scores higher than 36% of npm servers
Category Version Control
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 Security63
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- Known CVEs could not be checked: the version this server declares is not published in its registry.Unverified
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- Dependency health could not be checked: the version this server declares is not published in its registry.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 0 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability72
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 2243 tokens (~149/item across 15 items; 15 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 Management3
- Stability observed for 1 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 15 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 15 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.
- 17 Oct 26 −11
- Stability: 0.00 → unverified ▼ security
- Known CVEs: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Schema quality: 1886 → 2243 ▼ functional
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Dependency health: 0.85 → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- Package version: 0.5.0 → 0.6.0 functional
- 16 Oct 26 70
First indexed and scored.
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 17 Oct 2026 · Analysed npm/@reneturcios/greenlight@0.6.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | npm |
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 →
babysit_prs ~212
Watch your open PRs and get the one prioritized action list: needs you now (new review findings, CI failing on your code, merge conflicts, new guard flags, stuck checks), waiting on them (checks running, green with no feedback yet), quiet. Compares against stored watermarks so reruns report only what changed since the last check. Cron-friendly: always succeeds unless the input is wrong.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| author | string | – | Author whose open PRs to discover with mine. |
| mine | boolean | – | Discover the author's open PRs across the repos list via the GitHub search API. |
| pr_urls | array | – | Full GitHub PR URLs to watch, e.g. ["https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123"]. Empty when using mine. |
| repos | array | – | owner/repo list for mine discovery, e.g. ["acme/widgets"]. |
| state_path | string | – | Watermark file. Defaults to ~/.greenlight/babysit.json. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_issue ~88
Verdict on whether a GitHub issue is actually landable for an outside contributor. Returns GO, RISKY, TAKEN, GATED, or STALE with reasons, claim signals, and detected repo gates. Call this before writing code for an issue.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_url | string | yes | Full GitHub issue URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
ci_triage ~123
Answer the red-PR question: is this failure mine or pre-existing? Fetches the failing check runs on the PR head, compares them against the base branch's recent check history, and classifies each failing check as pre-existing, likely-yours, indeterminate (with a stated lean), or external-blocker (deploy/auth failures like Vercel). Call this on any PR with failing CI before spending time debugging.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| pr_url | string | yes | Full GitHub PR URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
claim_issue ~180
Post a claim comment on a GitHub issue, shaped by the repo's contribution gates. Runs the verdict pipeline first and refuses on TAKEN/STALE verdicts or vouch-gated repos. DRY RUN BY DEFAULT: returns the comment plan without posting unless execute is true, and posting requires GITHUB_TOKEN.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| eta_days | number | – | ETA in days recorded in the protocol claim comment (eta-days: line). |
| execute | boolean | – | Post the comment for real. Defaults to false: dry run returns the plan only. |
| force | boolean | – | Claim even on a TAKEN or STALE verdict. |
| issue_url | string | yes | Full GitHub issue URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123 |
| plan | string | – | Plan recorded in the protocol claim comment (plan: line). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
claim_status ~133
The Claim Protocol pre-flight answer for one issue: who holds it, until when, who is queued, which PRs compete, which gates bite, and whether the repo honors the protocol at all. Returns the SPEC 5.1 status payload with competing PRs and gates merged from the check machinery. The verdict vocabulary matches check_issue (GO / RISKY / TAKEN / GATED / STALE); a null verdict means no protocol claims and the check_issue verdict stands.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_url | string | yes | Full GitHub issue URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
evidence_pack ~145
The Verified PR evidence pack for one pull request: the guard verdict, CI triage, review triage, and Claim Protocol status of the linked issues, in one markdown document where every claim cites its source (check run, review anchor, claim comment URL). Call this when a maintainer, a recruiter, or your future self needs proof, not a summary.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| pr_url | string | yes | Full GitHub PR URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123 |
| verify_json | string | – | Path to a prior `greenlight verify --json` report to include the honest red-green test delta. The pack never runs suites itself. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
guard_pr ~147
Maintainer-side analysis of an incoming pull request: competing fix (other open PRs already fixing the same issue), prior claims by someone other than the PR author, missing required artifacts (changeset file, DCO sign-off, CLA status), and whether the author is a first-time contributor. Returns markdown ready to post as one PR comment plus structured findings. Reads a .greenlight-guard.json in the working directory for per-repo check toggles. Never posts anything. Call this from a GitHub Action or before reviewing an incoming PR.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| pr_url | string | yes | Full GitHub PR URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
open_pr ~189
Open a pull request for an issue from your fork branch. Verifies the branch exists, is ahead of upstream, and (on DCO repos) that every commit carries a Signed-off-by line. Composes the PR title and body (Closes #N plus verdict and gates at open time). DRY RUN BY DEFAULT: returns the composed PR without opening it unless execute is true; opening requires GITHUB_TOKEN.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | string | yes | Fork branch to open the PR from, e.g. feat/resume-61 |
| execute | boolean | – | Open the PR for real. Defaults to false: dry run returns the plan only. |
| issue_url | string | yes | Full GitHub issue URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123 |
| title | string | – | PR title override. Defaults to the branch's latest commit subject or the issue title. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
preflight ~109
The one-call answer to 'can I work on this issue right now': the Claim Protocol issue status (claim holder, expiry, queue, competing PRs, gates) plus the repo friction summary (how hard this repo is to land a PR in, 0-100). Call this before committing to any issue; it combines claim_status and repo_friction.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_url | string | yes | Full GitHub issue URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
prep_issue ~166
Prepare to work an issue: check/create your fork and a branch named from the issue title (learning the repo's branch convention from recent PRs when detectable), and write a local PREP.md checklist (verdict, gates, DCO reminders, next commands). Never clones. DRY RUN BY DEFAULT: no fork or branch is created unless execute is true; creating them requires GITHUB_TOKEN.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | string | – | Directory for PREP.md. Defaults to ./greenlight-prep/<repo>-<number>/ |
| execute | boolean | – | Actually create the fork/branch. Defaults to false: dry run returns the plan only. |
| issue_url | string | yes | Full GitHub issue URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
repo_digest ~176
Repo-level maintainer report: what needs attention across the whole repo? Reports PR races (two or more open PRs fixing the same issue, with first-claim arbitration), claimed-by-other conflicts (an open PR whose linked issue was claimed by someone else first), stale claims (issues claimed 14+ days ago with no open PR), and assignment-gate conflicts (repos that require assignment before a PR). Pass a --limit to bound the API budget on large repos; sections that cannot be computed say so instead of showing empty. Call this when triaging a repo, not just one PR.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | number | – | Max open PRs and open issues to inspect. The summary always states the cap and the true totals. |
| repo | string | yes | owner/repo, e.g. ComposioHQ/composio |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
repo_friction ~60
Friction score 0-100 for a repo (100 = easiest to land an outside PR). Based on detected contribution gates and computed outcome signals.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | string | yes | owner/repo, e.g. PrefectHQ/fastmcp |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
review_triage ~127
Triage the review feedback on your PR: which comments actually need you? Gathers bot (CodeRabbit, cubic, Greptile, Copilot) and human review comments, classifies each finding as likely-real, likely-noise, or needs-decision with the reason stated, and drafts a reply for each. Human reviewer comments are never called noise. Drafts only; nothing is posted. Call this after pushing and getting review feedback.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| pr_url | string | yes | Full GitHub PR URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
scan_repo ~96
Rank a repo's open issues by verdict, GO first. Starts with label-tagged good-first-issue / help-wanted issues; when the repo does not use those labels, falls back to the most recent open unassigned issues (flagged as fallback). Use this to pick a winnable issue instead of a taken one.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | string | yes | owner/repo, e.g. PrefectHQ/fastmcp |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_comment ~292
Draft the verified-finding comment for a maintainer-only repo (modelcontextprotocol/inspector, modelcontextprotocol/servers): outside PRs are closed on sight there, so the contribution that lands is a detailed, verified issue comment. Assembles the comment from your notes: claim, environment, reproduction steps, observed vs expected, root cause, fix sketch, and a verification footer. Sections you leave empty render as explicit gaps, never plausible filler. DRAFT ONLY: nothing is posted, ever. Copy the markdown into the issue thread yourself.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | string | – | One-line claim of the problem. |
| environment | string | – | Environment: repo, ref/commit, date, platform. |
| expected | string | – | What should have happened instead. |
| fix | string | – | Proposed fix sketch, not a code dump. |
| issue_url | string | yes | Full GitHub issue URL, e.g. https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/inspector/issues/2723 |
| observed | string | – | What was observed when the repro ran. |
| ran | string | – | What was actually run (commands, counts). |
| reproduction | string | – | Reproduction steps, one per line, exact commands. |
| root_cause | string | – | Root cause with file paths and line refs when known; empty renders 'not yet isolated'. |
| verified_by | string | – | Who ran the verification. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight MCP server?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @reneturcios/greenlight. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
npm · @reneturcios/greenlight
claude mcp add cloudcorprecords-greenlight -- npx -y @reneturcios/greenlight
What is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight MCP server?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight. Pre-flight checks for open-source contributions: is this GitHub issue actually landable? This page covers its npm package (@reneturcios/greenlight).
Is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight MCP server safe to use?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight scores 59 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. It declares no install or post-install scripts. 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/greenlight MCP server expose?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight exposes 15 tools: check_issue, scan_repo, repo_friction, claim_issue, prep_issue, and 10 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 2,243 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight MCP server still maintained?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 17 October 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/greenlight MCP server under?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/greenlight declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.