Technology & Software Engineering Top 100 / #–ARD = Agentic Resource Discovery · A2A = Agent2Agent · MCP = Model Context Protocol

Open-source project · Other · self-hosted

ai-guide

程序员鱼皮的 AI 资源大全 + Vibe Coding 零基础教程，分享 OpenClaw 保姆级教程、大模型玩法（DeepSeek / GPT / Gemini / Claude / GLM）、最新 AI 资讯、Prompt 提示词大全、AI 知识百科（Agent Skills / RAG / MCP / A2A）、AI 编程教程（Harness Engineering）、AI 工具用法（Cursor / Claude Code / TRAE / Codex / Copilot）、AI 开发框架教程（Spring AI / LangChain）、AI 产品变现指南，帮你快速掌握 AI 技术，走在时代前沿。本项目为开源文档 aiguide，已升级为鱼皮 AI 导航网站 Publisher: liyupi.

Vendor page ↗+ CompareExport JSON

Trust profileas of 2026-10-26

Publisherlikely · Repository ownership or inferred publisher domain — repository or Hub account ownershiplikely

Complianceno evidence foundT5

SecurityNo CVE linked to this agent in the CVE registry — none linked in the products checked, not a findingnone

ProtocolsModel Context Protocol (MCP) claimed — named in the resource's own tags; no endpoint at the publisher's well-known paths sourceAgent2Agent (A2A) claimed — named in the resource's own description; no endpoint at the publisher's well-known paths sourceAgentic Resource Discovery (ARD) probed, not found2 / 3

TracesNone found — nobody has published what this agent does under attacknone

Issues found0 regulator actions · 0 incidents · 0 withdrawn certificates · CVEs: see Securitylinks only

Evidence available — not a safety certification. Suitability depends on your task, deployment and permissions. Rows marked vendor-level describe liyupi, not this agent specifically.

Traces — under attack, in defence, in incidents

none public · what a trace is

No public trace found. Nobody has published what ai-guide does when its inputs carry instructions it should not follow, when a tool asks for credentials, or when a task invites a destructive command. Defenders can't learn from what they can't see: run it in a sandbox before the pilot and keep the transcript, or ask the vendor to publish one.

● third-party or vendor report · ◎ this registry's own probe transcript · ⚠ data left the environment. A trace describes one version on one date; it is evidence of behaviour, never a certification. Rows marked unreviewed have not yet been checked against their source by the maintainer.

CVEs — on the official record

none linked · the registry

No CVE in the registry names this agent or its listed product. That reads "none linked in the products checked", never as a finding: a product that is not on the registry's list, or a record that names it differently, is not seen. The vendor's own advisories remain the source of truth.

Compliance evidence

4 frameworks shown

–

SOC 2

T5 Unknown

Nothing found in the sources checked.

Scope: — · registries, marketplaces, vendor pages

ask the vendor

–

ISO 27001

T5 Unknown

Nothing found in the sources checked.

Scope: — · registries, marketplaces, vendor pages

ask the vendor

–

ISO 42001

T5 Unknown

Nothing found in the sources checked.

Scope: — · registries, marketplaces, vendor pages

ask the vendor

–

CSA STAR

T5 Unknown

Nothing found in the sources checked.

Scope: — · CSA STAR Registry

ask the vendor

"Unknown" means nothing was found in the sources checked — registries, marketplaces and the vendor's own pages. It is not a finding of non-compliance; ask the vendor.

✔ found · ○ claimed · – not found · ⚠ expired, stale or revoked. Every row links to its source.Dispute or correct this dossier

GDPR, assembled from checks

GDPR● 0 found in registries or documents○ 0 vendor-claimed⚠ 0 issues linkedas of 2026-10-26

– Not foundNo Article 42 GDPR seal. "GDPR certified" is never shown without one.

☐ You checkYour lawful basis, DPIA, and whether this agent is inside the certificate scope.

News and chatter

last 90 days · linked with confidence ≥ 0.85

Nothing linked from Hacker News, GDELT, GitHub releases or the vendor's feed in the last 90 days.

Headline, link and a summary attributed to the outlet. News never changes trust or domain scores.

Technology & Software Engineering score

technology profile · sar-score-2.0 · unranked

Adoption / usage25 / 30

Trust & security18 / 25

Project / product health20 / 20

Ecosystem / interoperability10 / 15

Domain expertise / fit81 / 100

Governance / compliance evidenceunknown

Docs / transparency7 / 10

Raw component / maximum, then weighted by the technology profile (adoption 30, trust 20, project 20, ecosystem 15, domain 10, governance 0, docs 5). Trust and governance are computed from the evidence on this page (vendor-level rows at half credit); the other components come from the curated workbook, whose order is the rank. Unknown components count as 0 and are never imputed.

Before you deploy

Derived from the evidence ledger. This agent is not yet in the reference set, so deployment questions (credentials, approval, data handling) are not answered here — ask the vendor.

Evidence supporting this use (0)

Nothing found in the sources checked.

Unknowns to check (1)

Ask the vendor for SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, CSA STAR evidence; none was found in the sources checked

Suggested restrictions for a pilot (2)

Ask for the SOC 2 report under NDA before the pilot touches customer data; none was found in the sources checked.

No public trace of this agent under adversarial input was found. Run it in a sandbox against your own prompt-injection and tool-abuse scenarios before the pilot, and keep the transcript; the enterprise edition records one.

Rules: config/deploy_rules.json. Advice for a bounded pilot, not a verdict.

Provenance

GitHubrepository signals, license

NVDsecurity (CVE keyword search)

Hacker News, GDELT, vendor feedsnews and chatter

First seen2026-10-26

Recordres_6d7fa000620f4490

Open the full record (JSON) →