Reference implementation Data compiled from public sources as of 2026-10-26. Not an assessment, certification or recommendation. Confirm current status with the vendor and the issuing body.
AgentDossier · AI Agent Registry Find agents you can actually trust - public or inside your enterprise.
Technology & Software Engineering Top 100 / #–ARD = Agentic Resource Discovery · A2A = Agent2Agent · MCP = Model Context Protocol
Open-source project · agent · self-hosted

codefather

程序员鱼皮的编程宝典 ⭐️ 2026年最全编程学习路线图！包含Java学习路线、前端学习路线、Python学习路线、C++学习路线、算法学习路线、计算机基础学习路线、AI应用开发学习路线、AI Agent开发学习路线等。提供编程入门教程、AI大模型应用开发教程、RAG开发实战、MCP开发教程、Prompt工程指南、LLM应用开发、技术知识分享、学习资源推荐、项目实战教程、热门面试题、求职经验、简历优化、编程自学指南等内容，适用于所有零基础学编程、学习AI开发、转行程序员、计算机专业学生、求职找工作的同学 💎 编程学习，就来编程导航！ 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) probed, not foundAgent2Agent (A2A) probed, not foundAgentic Resource Discovery (ARD) probed, not found0 / 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Issues found0 regulator actions · 0 incidents · 0 withdrawn certificates · CVEs: see Securitylinks only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 codefather 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

61
technology profile · sar-score-2.0 · unranked
Adoption / usage23 / 30
Trust & security15 / 25
Project / product health12 / 20
Ecosystem / interoperability3 / 15
Domain expertise / fit71 / 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 (2)
Ask the vendor for SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, CSA STAR evidence; none was found in the sources checked
Whether the agent exposes MCP or A2A endpoints; none were observed
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_ec76ffc64185caf7
Open the full record (JSON) →