Code Auditor vs AI Context
These two are level on the tashan score (within 0 points), so the score does not decide it. The evidence rows below are where they differ. 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 ›
| Code Auditor | AI Context | what it means | |
|---|---|---|---|
| tashan score | 71 | 71 | upkeep + freshness, gated by adoption |
| Adoption evidence | 3k/wk | 2k/wk | the raw public signal the score came from |
| Last release | active | active | npm publish or repo push |
| Upkeep | 73 | 73 | cadence, maintainers, status |
| Expertise grade | thin | deep | an LLM read of its own documentation against a fixed rubric |
| Security audit | no known advisories, no build provenance | no known advisories, runs an install script | existence of findings is always free; the detail a licence buys is on each dossier |
| Licence | — | — | |
| Maintainers | one primary | one primary | bus-factor risk |
Install either
Code Auditor
claude mcp add code-auditor-mcp -- npx -y code-auditor-mcpAI Context
claude mcp add vibgrate-cli -- npx -y @vibgrate/cliNeither 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, including what a licence adds, is on its own page: Code Auditor · AI Context.