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 / #90ARD = Agentic Resource Discovery · A2A = Agent2Agent · MCP = Model Context Protocol
Agent framework · Elastic-2.0 · GitHub; Mastra Cloud

Mastra

Prominent TypeScript-native agent framework with workflows, memory and evals. Publisher: Mastra.

Vendor page ↗+ CompareExport JSON
Trust profileas of 2026-10-26
Publisherlikely · Repository ownership or inferred publisher domain — repository or Hub account ownershiplikely
Complianceno evidence about this agent · 1 vendor-level record (inherited)T5
Security1 CVE linked in the registry · newest 2025-10-03linked
ProtocolsModel Context Protocol (MCP) claimed — named in the resource's own tags; no endpoint at the publisher's well-known paths sourceAgent2Agent (A2A) probed, not foundAgentic Resource Discovery (ARD) probed, not found1 / 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Issues found0 regulator actions · 0 incidents · 0 withdrawn certificates · CVEs: see Securitylinks only

Publisher unconfirmed: the evidence below is shown but not counted in the governance score, because nothing yet ties this listing to Mastra beyond repository or Hub account ownership. A vendor-domain page, marketplace listing, ARD manifest or A2A card would confirm it.

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

1 linked · the registry
CVE-2025-61685
2025-10-03
Mastra is a Typescript framework for building AI agents and assistants. Versions 0.13.8 through 0.13.20-alpha.0 are vulnerable to a Directory Traversal attack that results in the…
Data exfiltration · Path traversal · unreviewed
Medium 6.5

All 1 in the registry → Severity is the official record's; nothing here enters the score. Links are by listed product, so a CVE that names a different component of the same platform may be missing.

Compliance evidence

Jurisdiction: EU · 5 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.

About the vendor — inherited, not agent-specific

1 record matched at organisation level
○
GDPR · DPA available
T4 Vendor-claimed · vendor-level
Vendor-claimed
Scope: entity · vendor page · 2026-10-26
re-check 2026-11-02

A vendor-level registry entry proves the organisation was assessed; whether this agent is inside that scope is a question for the vendor. These rows do not count toward the agent's evidence tier.

✔ 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○ 1 vendor-claimed⚠ 0 issues linkedas of 2026-10-26
○ ClaimedDPA available: Vendor-claimed (vendor page, 2026-10-26). A DPA is a contract you still have to sign and review.
– 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
2026-10-21
mastra: October 21, 2026
GitHub releases · ## Highlights ### MCP Events (poll/stream/webhooks + Studio inspection) Experimental MCP Events (SEP-3415 draft) let MCP servers publish event streams that clients can poll, keep a stream open for, or receive via signed webhooks. Core/s
Product update
2026-10-16
mastra: October 15, 2026
GitHub releases · ## Highlights ### Agent Scopes (multi-tenant identity + safer memory/thread routing) Agents now support `scopes` (`<type>:<value>`) passed per call, configured on the agent, or injected by trusted middleware via `MASTRA_SCOPES_KEY`; Mas
Product update

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

Technology & Software Engineering score

87
technology profile · sar-score-2.0 · #90 of 100 in the curated list
Adoption / usage24 / 30
Trust & security17 / 25
Project / product health20 / 20
Ecosystem / interoperability14 / 15
Domain expertise / fit100 / 100
Governance / compliance evidence0 / 100
Docs / transparency10 / 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 (1)
GDPR DPA available — vendor-claimed, vendor-level source
Unknowns to check (2)
The transfer mechanism you will rely on; DPF covers EU-to-US transfers only
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

seed workbookscores, rank, category
vendor pageclaims
Hacker News, GDELT, vendor feedsnews and chatter
First seen2026-10-26
Recordres_14826ddbcfb85a27
Open the full record (JSON) →