Filesystem vs Patchloom
Filesystem scores 27 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 ›
| Filesystem | Patchloom | what it means | |
|---|---|---|---|
| tashan score | 96 | 69 | upkeep + freshness, gated by adoption |
| Adoption evidence | 471k/wk | 1k/wk | the raw public signal the score came from |
| Last release | active | active | npm publish or repo push |
| Upkeep | 94 | 70 | cadence, maintainers, status |
| Expertise grade | thin | not graded | an LLM read of its own documentation against a fixed rubric |
| Security audit | no known advisories | no known advisories, no build provenance | a summary — the full audit, free, is on each dossier |
| Licence | NOASSERTION | — | |
| Maintainers | more than one | one primary | bus-factor risk |
Install either
Filesystem
claude mcp add filesystem -- npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystemPatchloom
claude mcp add patchloom -- npx -y patchloomNeither 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: Filesystem · Patchloom.