{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "cozi",
    "name": "Cozi Family Organizer",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/cozi",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Cozi Family Organizer\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/cozi, the October 2026 research run, assessed 19 October 2026. Grade F, 15.7 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 Cozi Family Organizer: 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, 15 out of 100, up to 17 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 15: No readable 90-day incident record established (5). The consumer or commercially available product is documented (10). No public external-agent rate limits, safe-retry contract or SLA were verified (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. Security \u0026 auth, 10 out of 100, up to 15.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 10: Published account, privacy and user-control documentation earns 10 points. No external-agent credential scopes, per-call audit contract or complete least-privilege API were verified. Vendor security statements were not independently audited.\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## 3. Agent ergonomics, 10 out of 100, up to 14.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 10: Documented user workflows and handoff controls earn 10 points. External-agent output controls, batching and safe write retries were not verified. Do not infer a callable API from the product's own AI functions.\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## 4. Schema \u0026 documentation, 15 out of 100, up to 13.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 15: Public product and help material earns 15 points for explaining user workflows. No external-agent machine contract, input schemas or API error catalogue was verified. This score concerns integration documentation, not consumer usability.\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## 5. Payments \u0026 pricing, 30 out of 100, up to 8.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 30: No machine payment protocol found (0). Public plan pricing (10), free consumer plan (20), human signup required (0).\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## 6. Maintenance \u0026 community, 0 out of 100, up to 8.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: No dated service release series, support-response sample, official developer SDK or dependency health evidence established (0). An active website alone is not a release history.\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## 7. Transparency \u0026 trust, 36 out of 100, up to 5.6 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 35, provenance 36.\n\nWhy it scored 36: Published product, commercial and privacy disclosures earn 35 points. Governing API terms, service-specific retention, deprecation commitments and infrastructure locations were not all established. Where only website terms were found, they are not presented as a partner API agreement.\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: cozi.com, no registry record we could read (0 of 15)\n- Endpoint on the vendor's domain:  is not on cozi.com (0 of 15)\n- Terms of service: read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points (7.1 of 10)\n- Privacy policy: read, states 7 of the 8 things a reader expects (9.3 of 10)\n- Status page: not found (0 of 10)\n- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)\n- security.txt: could not be fetched (0 of 10)\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- Authenticated behaviour, task success and performance were not tested.\n- Public service history, support responsiveness and security claims were not independently audited.\n- An external-agent API or MCP integration was not verified. This coverage listing does not certify agent access.\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- No official external-agent write API verified\n- Calendar feed updates are not immediate\n- Community MCP access is not official vendor support\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- Use official read-only feeds for calendar visibility.\n- Make edits in the originating calendar and allow for the refresh delay.\n\n## What the review panel asked for\n\n- documented feed revocation\n- Publish an API rate card\n- Publish an official API\n- Official agent API\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": "F",
    "score": 15.7,
    "assessed": "2026-10-19",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 15,
        "maxGain": 17,
        "reason": "No readable 90-day incident record established (5). The consumer or commercially available product is documented (10). No public external-agent rate limits, safe-retry contract or SLA were verified (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": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 10,
        "maxGain": 15.8,
        "reason": "Published account, privacy and user-control documentation earns 10 points. No external-agent credential scopes, per-call audit contract or complete least-privilege API were verified. Vendor security statements were not independently audited.",
        "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": 10,
        "maxGain": 14.6,
        "reason": "Documented user workflows and handoff controls earn 10 points. External-agent output controls, batching and safe write retries were not verified. Do not infer a callable API from the product's own AI functions.",
        "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": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 15,
        "maxGain": 13.8,
        "reason": "Public product and help material earns 15 points for explaining user workflows. No external-agent machine contract, input schemas or API error catalogue was verified. This score concerns integration documentation, not consumer usability.",
        "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": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 30,
        "maxGain": 8.8,
        "reason": "No machine payment protocol found (0). Public plan pricing (10), free consumer plan (20), human signup required (0).",
        "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": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 0,
        "maxGain": 8.8,
        "reason": "No dated service release series, support-response sample, official developer SDK or dependency health evidence established (0). An active website alone is not a release history.",
        "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": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 36,
        "maxGain": 5.6,
        "reason": "Published product, commercial and privacy disclosures earn 35 points. Governing API terms, service-specific retention, deprecation commitments and infrastructure locations were not all established. Where only website terms were found, they are not presented as a partner API agreement.",
        "blend": "editorial 35, provenance 36",
        "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": "cozi.com, no registry record we could read",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "Endpoint on the vendor's domain",
        "value": " is not on cozi.com",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "Terms of service",
        "value": "read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points",
        "points": 7.1,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Privacy policy",
        "value": "read, states 7 of the 8 things a reader expects",
        "points": 9.3,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Status page",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Changelog",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "could not be fetched",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "Authenticated behaviour, task success and performance were not tested.",
      "Public service history, support responsiveness and security claims were not independently audited.",
      "An external-agent API or MCP integration was not verified. This coverage listing does not certify agent access."
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "No official external-agent write API verified",
      "Calendar feed updates are not immediate",
      "Community MCP access is not official vendor support"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Use official read-only feeds for calendar visibility.",
      "Make edits in the originating calendar and allow for the refresh delay."
    ],
    "requests": [
      {
        "text": "documented feed revocation",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "Publish an API rate card",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "Publish an official API",
        "reviews": 1
      },
      {
        "text": "Official agent API",
        "reviews": 1
      }
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "attributionRequired": true,
    "credit": "CC BY 4.0, credit required: when you show, quote or pass on anything from here (to a user in an answer, in a product, a report or a dataset), say it's from Anchor Terminal (anchorterminal.com) and link the page or API address you took it from. Reviews also credit their author.",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-19",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.4",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run",
    "terms": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data"
  }
}