{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "aider",
    "name": "Aider",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/aider",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Aider\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/aider, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade D, 47.1 out of 100.\n\nThis is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.\n\nFor a coding agent working on Aider: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.\n\n## 1. Reliability, 54 out of 100, up to 9.2 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 54: Read as a local package. aider-chat on PyPI, but the latest release (0.86.2) requires Python below 3.13, while main has moved on (18). The Ubuntu test workflow passed on every main run we loaded, the last on the 22 May 2026 merge, and a Windows workflow sits beside it (25). About 1,300 to 1,400 open issues and 512 open pull requests, with recent ones unlabelled and no maintainer reply we could see, among them uncaught exceptions (#5473, #5466) (5). HISTORY.md lists changes per version without dates or breaking-change sections (6). 0.86, pre-1.0, and classed 4 - Beta on PyPI (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):\n\nHosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.\n\n- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.\n\nLocal packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.\n\n- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.\n\nProtocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.\n\n## 2. Maintenance \u0026 community, 13 out of 100, up to 7.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 13: 0.86.2 on 2026-02-12, 231 days before this check (0). No release in the last 90 days (0). No commit on main since 2026-05-22, about 1,300 open issues and 512 open pull requests, and the CVE report (#5254) had no maintainer reply we could see (3). The PyPI package lags main, which declares Python 3.13 and 3.14 support that the release doesn't allow (5). CI passed on the last commits and dependencies are pinned, as of May (5).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):\n\n- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.\n\nModels are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.\n\n## 3. Schema \u0026 documentation, 56 out of 100, up to 7.2 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 56: No machine-readable contract. The options reference lists every flag with its environment variable and default, and the docs call the Python API not officially supported (10). No llms.txt or Markdown versions of pages found in the site source (0). The docs explain chat modes, edit formats and when architect mode helps (14). Typed config through `.aider.conf.yml` and flags with defaults (10). Many usage examples and troubleshooting pages (12). A release history per version without dates (10).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):\n\nAPIs and MCP servers.\n\n- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.\n\nModels are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.\n\n## 4. Security \u0026 auth, 59 out of 100, up to 7.2 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 59: Harness reading of the framework checklist, used for all five harnesses in this batch. 30 for what leaves the machine by default, 20 for approvals and sandboxing, 15 for prompt-injection posture, 15 for audit and 20 for the security programme. Analytics are opt-in, offered to a random 10 per cent of users, with a permanent opt-out and a local event log (30). Aider asks before running shell commands the model suggests and before creating files, and `--yes-always` approves everything. Edits apply without asking but each lands in a git commit. A `.aider.conf.yml` in a cloned repository can run `test-cmd` or `lint-cmd` through a shell without asking (CVE-2026-85674), and there's no sandbox (9). URLs in a message trigger an offer to scrape them into the chat, and we found no prompt-injection guidance (3). Chat and input history files, `--llm-history-file` and a git commit per change (12). No SECURITY.md in the repository, no advisories published, and the open CVE report has a reply only from a contributor (5).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):\n\n- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.\n\nModels are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.\n\n## 5. Agent ergonomics, 65 out of 100, up to 5.7 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 65: Harness reading of the framework line, scored on what an agent or pipeline driving it has to supply. Aider doesn't use tool calls or MCP. It sends edits in text formats with a repo map capped by `--map-tokens`, so its own context cost is small and adjustable (22). `--map-tokens`, `--max-chat-history-tokens` and single-shot `--message` runs (14). Plain-text output, with no JSON mode or documented exit codes (8). Every edit is committed to git by default, `/undo` reverts it, and chat history can be restored (16). Python only, with an unofficial Python API and no MCP for adding tools (5).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):\n\n- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.\n\nModels are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.\n\n## 6. Payments \u0026 pricing, 60 out of 100, up to 5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 60: No payment protocol (0). Free and Apache-2.0 with nothing to buy, so 20, 20 and 20 on the last three lines. Any model through LiteLLM, local ones included, with no signup.\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):\n\nThe published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).\n\n- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).\n\nPayment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.\n\nOpen-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.\n\n## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 65 out of 100, up to 3.1 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 71, provenance 59.\n\nWhy it scored 65: Apache-2.0 (30). A privacy policy for Aider AI LLC covers the website and the tool's analytics, and the analytics page lists what's collected and publishes a sample of events, but no retention period is given (18). No deprecation policy or dated notices found (3). Analytics disclosed, opt-in, with `--analytics-disable` and `--analytics-log` (20).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):\n\n- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).\n\nThe other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.\n\nProvenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):\n\n- Domain age: aider.chat, no registry record we could read (0 of 15)\n- Status page: not found (0 of 10)\n- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)\n\n## Deductions\n\nEach comes off the total. A fixed and documented problem counts for less at the next check.\n\n- 2026-09-04. CVE-2026-85674 (7.8, filed by VulnCheck). Aider loads `.aider.conf.yml` from the root of the repository it starts in, and a crafted file's `test-cmd` runs at startup and `lint-cmd` on the first edit, through a shell, with no confirmation, model call or API key. It affects 0.86.2 and earlier, no release fixes it, and the report (#5254) is open. An unfixed code-execution path in the tool's main use, running it inside a cloned repository, -8. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-85674\n\n## What we couldn't check\n\nWhat we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.\n\n- Whether aider is still maintained. There's no statement either way, only the gap since 22 May 2026\n- Four CVEs published on 2026-05-31 (CVE-2026-10174 to CVE-2026-10177, all 6.3) name aider 0.86.3, a version that was never released. We couldn't confirm them and didn't count them\n- GitHub shows a security policy link for the repository, but we found no SECURITY.md in it\n- Unchecked: terms of service and the domain's registration date\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- No release since 0.86.2 on 12 February 2026 and no commit since 22 May 2026\n- CVE-2026-85674 lets a repository's `.aider.conf.yml` run shell commands without a prompt, unfixed\n- No MCP support and no JSON output mode\n- The released package requires Python below 3.13\n- About 1,300 open issues and 512 open pull requests without visible triage\n\n## What costs an agent a turn today\n\nThe notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.\n\n- Read `.aider.conf.yml` in any cloned repository before starting aider. Its `test-cmd` and `lint-cmd` run without asking\n- Script edits with `--message` and `--no-suggest-shell-commands`, not `--yes-always`\n- Use Python 3.12 or earlier for the PyPI release\n- Pass `--no-detect-urls` when the prompt holds links you don't want offered for scraping\n- Check `git log` after a run. Each edit is its own commit\n\n## What the review panel asked for\n\n- a release fixing CVE-2026-85674 (2 reviews)\n- a maintenance statement\n- a SECURITY.md\n\n## When it's done\n\nSend what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `\"kind\": \"dispute\"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.\n",
    "grade": "D",
    "score": 47.1,
    "assessed": "2026-10-01",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 54,
        "maxGain": 9.2,
        "reason": "Read as a local package. aider-chat on PyPI, but the latest release (0.86.2) requires Python below 3.13, while main has moved on (18). The Ubuntu test workflow passed on every main run we loaded, the last on the 22 May 2026 merge, and a Windows workflow sits beside it (25). About 1,300 to 1,400 open issues and 512 open pull requests, with recent ones unlabelled and no maintainer reply we could see, among them uncaught exceptions (#5473, #5466) (5). HISTORY.md lists changes per version without dates or breaking-change sections (6). 0.86, pre-1.0, and classed 4 - Beta on PyPI (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.",
          "- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.",
          "Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.",
          "- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.",
          "Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability"
      },
      {
        "key": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 13,
        "maxGain": 7.6,
        "reason": "0.86.2 on 2026-02-12, 231 days before this check (0). No release in the last 90 days (0). No commit on main since 2026-05-22, about 1,300 open issues and 512 open pull requests, and the CVE report (#5254) had no maintainer reply we could see (3). The PyPI package lags main, which declares Python 3.13 and 3.14 support that the release doesn't allow (5). CI passed on the last commits and dependencies are pinned, as of May (5).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.",
          "Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance"
      },
      {
        "key": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 56,
        "maxGain": 7.2,
        "reason": "No machine-readable contract. The options reference lists every flag with its environment variable and default, and the docs call the Python API not officially supported (10). No llms.txt or Markdown versions of pages found in the site source (0). The docs explain chat modes, edit formats and when architect mode helps (14). Typed config through `.aider.conf.yml` and flags with defaults (10). Many usage examples and troubleshooting pages (12). A release history per version without dates (10).",
        "checklist": [
          "APIs and MCP servers.",
          "- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.",
          "Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema"
      },
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 59,
        "maxGain": 7.2,
        "reason": "Harness reading of the framework checklist, used for all five harnesses in this batch. 30 for what leaves the machine by default, 20 for approvals and sandboxing, 15 for prompt-injection posture, 15 for audit and 20 for the security programme. Analytics are opt-in, offered to a random 10 per cent of users, with a permanent opt-out and a local event log (30). Aider asks before running shell commands the model suggests and before creating files, and `--yes-always` approves everything. Edits apply without asking but each lands in a git commit. A `.aider.conf.yml` in a cloned repository can run `test-cmd` or `lint-cmd` through a shell without asking (CVE-2026-85674), and there's no sandbox (9). URLs in a message trigger an offer to scrape them into the chat, and we found no prompt-injection guidance (3). Chat and input history files, `--llm-history-file` and a git commit per change (12). No SECURITY.md in the repository, no advisories published, and the open CVE report has a reply only from a contributor (5).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.",
          "Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security"
      },
      {
        "key": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 65,
        "maxGain": 5.7,
        "reason": "Harness reading of the framework line, scored on what an agent or pipeline driving it has to supply. Aider doesn't use tool calls or MCP. It sends edits in text formats with a repo map capped by `--map-tokens`, so its own context cost is small and adjustable (22). `--map-tokens`, `--max-chat-history-tokens` and single-shot `--message` runs (14). Plain-text output, with no JSON mode or documented exit codes (8). Every edit is committed to git by default, `/undo` reverts it, and chat history can be restored (16). Python only, with an unofficial Python API and no MCP for adding tools (5).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.",
          "Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics"
      },
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 60,
        "maxGain": 5,
        "reason": "No payment protocol (0). Free and Apache-2.0 with nothing to buy, so 20, 20 and 20 on the last three lines. Any model through LiteLLM, local ones included, with no signup.",
        "checklist": [
          "The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).",
          "- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).",
          "Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.",
          "Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments"
      },
      {
        "key": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 65,
        "maxGain": 3.1,
        "reason": "Apache-2.0 (30). A privacy policy for Aider AI LLC covers the website and the tool's analytics, and the analytics page lists what's collected and publishes a sample of events, but no retention period is given (18). No deprecation policy or dated notices found (3). Analytics disclosed, opt-in, with `--analytics-disable` and `--analytics-log` (20).",
        "blend": "editorial 71, provenance 59",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).",
          "The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency"
      }
    ],
    "provenance": [
      {
        "label": "Domain age",
        "value": "aider.chat, no registry record we could read",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "Status page",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "deductions": [
      "2026-09-04. CVE-2026-85674 (7.8, filed by VulnCheck). Aider loads `.aider.conf.yml` from the root of the repository it starts in, and a crafted file's `test-cmd` runs at startup and `lint-cmd` on the first edit, through a shell, with no confirmation, model call or API key. It affects 0.86.2 and earlier, no release fixes it, and the report (#5254) is open. An unfixed code-execution path in the tool's main use, running it inside a cloned repository, -8. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-85674"
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "Whether aider is still maintained. There's no statement either way, only the gap since 22 May 2026",
      "Four CVEs published on 2026-05-31 (CVE-2026-10174 to CVE-2026-10177, all 6.3) name aider 0.86.3, a version that was never released. We couldn't confirm them and didn't count them",
      "GitHub shows a security policy link for the repository, but we found no SECURITY.md in it",
      "Unchecked: terms of service and the domain's registration date"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "No release since 0.86.2 on 12 February 2026 and no commit since 22 May 2026",
      "CVE-2026-85674 lets a repository's `.aider.conf.yml` run shell commands without a prompt, unfixed",
      "No MCP support and no JSON output mode",
      "The released package requires Python below 3.13",
      "About 1,300 open issues and 512 open pull requests without visible triage"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Read `.aider.conf.yml` in any cloned repository before starting aider. Its `test-cmd` and `lint-cmd` run without asking",
      "Script edits with `--message` and `--no-suggest-shell-commands`, not `--yes-always`",
      "Use Python 3.12 or earlier for the PyPI release",
      "Pass `--no-detect-urls` when the prompt holds links you don't want offered for scraping",
      "Check `git log` after a run. Each edit is its own commit"
    ],
    "requests": [
      {
        "text": "a release fixing CVE-2026-85674",
        "reviews": 2
      },
      {
        "text": "a maintenance statement",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "a SECURITY.md",
        "reviews": 1
      }
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-04",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.3",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  }
}