Trust score for AI-generated code: scan repos, guard agent file writes, get a 0-100 score.
Copy the AI prompt to install this server into Claude Code, Cursor, or another agent β or use 1-click editor setup below.
We haven't yet run this listing's install command through our automated sandbox check. This isn't a red flag β we're steadily working through the catalog.
π‘ Paste the JSON block into your client's configuration file under mcpServers, then restart the application.
Everyone is vibecoding. Nobody is verifying. Umbra scores it.
Umbra is a deterministic Trust Score (0β100) for AI-generated code: the vibe coding security scanner that verifies what your agent shipped, not what it claimed. One command, fully local, evidence for every finding.
β umbra-badge.umbrabadge.workers.dev β the landing, live badges and report pages
Quickstart Β· Demo Β· The Audit Β· How it works Β· The Four Axes Β· FAQ Β· Roadmap Β· Contributing Β· Website

Studies put exploitable vulnerabilities in 40 to 60 percent of AI-generated code, and coding agents routinely claim "all tests pass" when three do. The tooling for writing code with AI is a year ahead of the tooling for trusting it. Umbra closes that gap: SAST rebuilt for how software gets written now, plus sandboxed verification that catches what static rules cannot.
One command scans any repo an agent produced (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot,
Windsurf, Lovable) and returns a score with file:line evidence for every
finding. With --deep it goes further: Umbra builds and boots the repo in a
locked-down Docker sandbox, then replays the agent's own claims against
reality. If the agent is lying about tests, the score is capped below
passing, with receipts.
We ran Umbra over 61 public, actively-maintained AI-built repos and published everything. The Vibe-Coding Security Audit:
| Finding | Repos hit |
|---|---|
Hardcoded-secret findings (committed .env, service keys in source) | 25% |
| API routes with no auth check | 26% |
| Injection sinks (SQL interpolation, unsafe HTML injection) | 49% |
| Entire databases / SQL dumps committed to git | 13% |
| At least one critical finding | 10% |
| Zero scored findings (genuinely clean) | 7 of 61 |
Mean trust score: 74/100. One in five repos fails outright. The full report has per-class deep dives with representative snippets and fixes, the complete per-repo table, and an honest methodology section β including the false positives we found in our own rules while running it, and fixed (rubric v4).
That's the whole interface. Three verbs: check, heal, protect.
Using an AI coding agent? Umbra is built to be driven by agents, not just run by humans:
--setup installs PreToolUse hooks so every file the agent writes is guarded before it lands.umbra-mcp (npx --yes -p @elberacasa/umbra umbra-mcp) and the agent gets scan_repo, guard_content, and get_score as tools.Real output, scanning a typical vibe-coded Next.js app (fixtures/bad-app in this repo, Trust Score 30/100):
The exit code is 1 when the score is below 50, so CI can gate on it.
The canonical package is @elberacasa/umbra; umbra-scan is the short
alias. Same engine either way.
Every finding carries a confidence level and file:line evidence. Only high and medium confidence findings move the score; hunches go to a notes section. The rubric is versioned (currently v3), so the same repo always gets the same score. Full math in RUBRIC.md.
Scanning finds problems after they land. The immune layer checks every file
your agent writes before it lands. umbra protect installs PreToolUse
hooks into Claude Code and Kimi Code (auto-detected, one command); the same
engine backs the umbra-mcp server for MCP-native agents.

No reviews yet β be the first to share how this listing worked for you.
Showcase your server listing on GitHub or your project documentation. Embed this dynamic SVG badge to highlight official listing status and live engagement.
[](https://allmcps.com/mcp/umbra)<a href="https://allmcps.com/mcp/umbra"><img src="https://allmcps.com/api/badge/umbra?style=directory" alt="Umbra on AllMCPs" /></a>