Bowmark vs Trusty Squire
Trusty Squire scores 6 points higher — a narrow lead. Read the evidence rows below before treating it as decisive. Both are measured the same way, on the same day, from public evidence only — so this is a comparison of two measurements rather than two marketing pages. How we measure ›
| Bowmark | Trusty Squire | what it means | |
|---|---|---|---|
| tashan score | 69 | 75 | upkeep + freshness, gated by adoption |
| Adoption evidence | 4k/wk | 2k/wk | the raw public signal the score came from |
| Last release | active | active | npm publish or repo push |
| Upkeep | 61 | 99 | cadence, maintainers, status |
| Expertise grade | thin | deep | an LLM read of its own documentation against a fixed rubric |
| Security audit | no known advisories | no known advisories | a summary — the full audit, free, is on each dossier |
| Licence | MIT | MIT | |
| Maintainers | one primary | more than one | bus-factor risk |
Install either
Bowmark
claude mcp add bowmark -- npx -y bowmark-mcpTrusty Squire
claude mcp add trusty-squire -- npx -y @trusty-squire/mcpNeither score is a security verdict — "well maintained" and "nothing known is wrong" are different claims, which is why the audit is a separate row and never folded into the number. The full audit for each — the advisory ids, the version that fixes them and anything that runs at install time — is free on its own page: Bowmark · Trusty Squire.