Loading the registry…
We found this by crawling public sources and nobody has attested to it. That is how most of the registry gets here, and it is not a mark against the artifact — it only means no authenticated act of publication is on record. An artifact can be the vendor's own and still appear here.
1 critical finding reported by cisco-skill-scanner. The composite score alone does not reflect this — read the per-scanner reports below.
This artifact ships from 2 sources and their verdicts differ. The worst is github (Flagged). Installing from a cleaner source does not mean the others are safe — check the source you actually install from.
github: https://github.com/apideck-libraries/mcp, 28 findings
Choose your runtime: the CLI writes the mcpServers config entry for that target.
nerlo install --target claude-code -- @apideck/mcp
Install respects the composite badge: Clean proceeds, Caution prompts for confirmation, and Flagged is refused. Write operations require an API token.
5 of 11 scanners examined this package. The rest do not apply to it — language, ecosystem and packaging decide which analyzers can say anything, and a scanner that cannot examine an artifact reports nothing rather than passing it.
v1.4.0
0 findings · 0.6s
v2.0.11
13 findings · 9.0s
v0.3.26
4 findings · 0.7s
v0.1.0
0 findings · 27.1s
v0.1.0
1 finding · 17.2s
v0.1.0
No source files this scanner can analyze were found in this artifact. What each scanner covers
0 findings · 27.1s
No report in this scan: capslock, govulncheck, osv-scanner, trivy, trivy_image.
1 scan on record. Every scan's full results are retained immutably for 24 months.
| Completed | Composite | Change | Scanners | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2026 | Scan Halted | — | agentshield: completecisco-skill-scanner: completeagent-audit-kit: completenerlo-behavioral ·n/a: not applicablenerlo-install-instruction: completenerlo-multi-source: complete | rejected |
Findings in files this artifact installs stand as reported; a model re-read the rest and said which ones it believes are false positives. This is a second opinion published beside the evidence, not a correction to it: the per-scanner reports above are unchanged, every dismissed finding is still listed there at its original severity, and the score and the Flagged badge are computed from those raw severities alone. Nothing below moved them.
This review has not run for this scan yet. It runs once per scan, in the background, and is kept; it appears here when it has. Until then all 18 findings above stand exactly as their scanners reported them, at full severity.