io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck
NPM · @RENETURCIOS/REPROCHECK · 2 COMPONENTS
Red-first repro verifier: a fix counts only when the repro fails on the base and passes on the fix.
Available components
Last scanned (4 hours ago)
Scores higher than 43% of npm servers
Category Testing and QA
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 Security81
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- CVE check failed: a known high-severity CVE affects zod 3.25.76, a direct dependency. A fixed version is available. View diagnostics → Fail
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 30 of 93 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
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 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 Usability72
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 463 tokens (~231/item across 2 items; 2 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 Management57
- Stability observed for 17 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
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 50 to 53. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 15 days of observed history at the previous scan, 16 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 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 26 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Schema quality: 281 → 231 ▲ functional
- Package version: 0.1.0 → 0.2.0 functional
- 24 Oct 26 −5
- CVE-2023-54404 affects this package: high ▼ security
- Known CVEs: pass → fail ▼ security
- 23 Oct 26 +2
- Stability: unverified → 0.13 ▲ 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 npm/@reneturcios/reprocheck@0.2.0
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 →
Vulnerabilities 1 finding
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 | CVE-2023-54404 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
Dependencies 93 packages
| Packages resolved | 93 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 30 |
| 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 →
detect_test_runners ~61
Detect which native test runners a local repository supports (pytest and/or go test), with the filesystem evidence for each and the test files found. Runs no code from the target repository.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoPath | string | yes | Path to a local repository or directory |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
run_repro_check ~402
Verify a fix the honest way: run the same repro in clean git worktrees of the base ref and the head ref. VERIFIED only when it fails on the base and passes on the head. NOT-REPRODUCED when it passes on the base too, STILL-FAILING when it fails on both, BROKEN-BY-HEAD when the change introduced the failure, ERROR when a run could not complete. Give either a raw command, or a native runner (pytest, go, or auto) with an optional testFile and testName, and reprocheck builds the real pytest or go test command itself. An uncommitted repro or regression test file can be copied into both worktrees with testFile. The report includes a machine readable receipt with the red (base) and green (head) evidence. The working tree is never modified.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| baseRef | string | yes | Base ref (the code before the fix), e.g. main or a commit SHA |
| command | string | – | The raw repro command to run in both worktrees, e.g. npm test. Omit when runner is given |
| headRef | string | yes | Head ref (the code with the fix), e.g. HEAD or a branch |
| repoPath | string | yes | Path to a local git repository |
| runner | string | – | Native test runner to use instead of a raw command: pytest, go, or auto (detect from the repo) |
| setupCommand | string | – | Optional setup command run in each worktree first, e.g. npm install |
| testFile | string | – | Repo-relative path of an uncommitted repro/test file in the working tree to copy into both worktrees |
| testName | string | – | A single named test for a native runner, e.g. test_add for pytest or TestAdd for go test |
| timeoutSeconds | number | – | Per-command timeout in seconds, default 300 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck MCP server?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @reneturcios/reprocheck. 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/reprocheck
claude mcp add cloudcorprecords-reprocheck -- npx -y @reneturcios/reprocheck
What is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck MCP server?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck. Red-first repro verifier: a fix counts only when the repro fails on the base and passes on the fix. This page covers its npm package (@reneturcios/reprocheck).
Is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck MCP server safe to use?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck scores 72 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We recorded 1 known advisory against it as of 5 November 2026. 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/reprocheck MCP server expose?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck exposes 2 tools: run_repro_check, detect_test_runners. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 463 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck MCP server still maintained?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck 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 io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck MCP server under?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/reprocheck declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.