Auth vs AI Context
AI Context scores 23 points higher on the same evidence, which is a real separation rather than noise. 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 ›
| Auth | AI Context | what it means | |
|---|---|---|---|
| tashan score | 48 | 71 | upkeep + freshness, gated by adoption |
| Adoption evidence | 29k/wk | 3k/wk | the raw public signal the score came from |
| Last release | abandoned | active | npm publish or repo push |
| Upkeep | 47 | 73 | cadence, maintainers, status |
| Expertise grade | not graded | 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 | a summary — the full audit, free, is on each dossier |
| Licence | — | — | |
| Maintainers | one primary | one primary | bus-factor risk |
Install either
Auth
claude mcp add auth -- npx -y mcp-authAI Context
claude mcp add ai-context -- 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 — the advisory ids, the version that fixes them and anything that runs at install time — is free on its own page: Auth · AI Context.