Compare

How people actually decide whether to trust a repo

Most of the time, the honest answer is "look at the star count and hope." Here's how RepoSentry compares to that, to a dependency/SAST scanner, and to an engineer actually reading the code.

CapabilityRepoSentryDependency & SAST scannersManual code reviewJust trusting stars & vibes
Checks dependencies against known CVEs
nobody does this by hand
Reads the repo's actual code for malicious intent, not just its manifest
pattern rules, no judgement
Flags content aimed at manipulating an AI coding agent (prompt injection, hidden Unicode, untrusted MCP configs)
not built for this threat
reviewers aren't looking for it
Filters placeholder/test-fixture matches out before they count as real findings
usually raw regex hits
Public due-diligence context (repo age, maintainer history, open issues)
only if you go look
Plain-English report a non-developer can act on
raw output, built for engineers
depends who's reviewing
OWASP Top 10 + CWE mapping for a compliance workpaper
CVE/CVSS only, usually
Time to a result
needs setup/CI first
hours, if it happens at all

These describe how each category of tool is generally built, not a claim about any specific product's exact feature set today - your dependency scanner may do more than the row above credits it for.

What's actually new here

Checks for attacks aimed at your AI agent, not just you

Increasingly, the code you clone gets read by an AI coding assistant before a human ever does. That's a threat surface most scanners were never built for - prompt-injection phrasing addressed to an "AI"/"assistant", hidden or invisible Unicode text, and MCP server configs pointing at untrusted remote endpoints. RepoSentry checks for it explicitly, in its own report section.

Every high-severity finding is checked against the real file

A regex match, or an AI's own read of a file, is a claim - not a fact - until it's checked. Every AI-sourced finding, and every critical/high/medium secrets match, gets re-opened and confirmed against the actual cloned code before it can affect your score. A downgrade is logged with its reason, never a silent retraction - see /security.

One report, two audiences

The same scan produces a plain-English verdict a non-technical founder can act on, and an OWASP/CWE-tagged, CVSS-aligned finding table a security or compliance reviewer can drop straight into a workpaper. Most tools pick one audience.

Paste a GitHub URL, get a real answer in minutes

No install, no CI integration, no waiting on someone else's calendar.

Scan a repo

See /methodology for exactly what a scan checks, and /security for why RepoSentry itself is safe to run.