{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "posthog",
    "name": "PostHog",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/posthog",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: PostHog\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/posthog, the October 2026 research run, assessed 7 October 2026. Grade B, 68.4 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 PostHog: 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. Payments \u0026 pricing, 40 out of 100, up to 7.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 40: No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Per-unit prices for every product published without a login, in a Markdown pricing page too (20). Free plan with no card (20). A person signs up in a browser and creates a key or approves OAuth (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## 2. Reliability, 74 out of 100, up to 5.2 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 74: Graded on PostHog Cloud with the hosted lines. Status page on incident.io at posthogstatus.com with per-region components, among them MCP Server and REST API Query endpoints (20). 31 incidents between 9 July and 6 October 2026. Four were analytics query timeouts or failures (15 July for 67 minutes, 31 August open for 27 hours 35 minutes with load shed after 4 hours, 10 September for 9 minutes, 30 September for 2 hours 6 minutes), plus US API errors for 65 minutes on 19 August and MCP sign-in from ChatGPT failing for 20 hours on 10 August. None was marked a full outage of the API, so 10 of 30. Rate limits published with numbers per endpoint class (15). The query read budget answers 429 with `Retry-After` and budget headers, but there is no backoff guidance for the general limits and no idempotency keys for writes were found (9). 99.95 per cent uptime SLA in the terms for the Enterprise package (10). The REST API is generally available and the MCP docs carry no beta label (10).\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## 3. Agent ergonomics, 78 out of 100, up to 3.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 78: 1,096 MCP tools is far past 30 (5). Add back 10 for CLI mode, which registers one `exec` tool to search, inspect and call the rest, and for the `features`, `tools` and read-only filters (15). Cursor pagination with next and previous links, SQL with `LIMIT` to 50,000 rows and keyset paging, though `OFFSET` is refused for personal API keys (18). Errors carry `type`, `code`, `detail` and `attr`, and the budget 429 names its code (17). Every MCP tool has readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and idempotentHint (592 read-only, 135 destructive), and 18 admin actions are split into prepare and execute steps. No idempotency keys on REST writes (15). SDKs in many languages, but they cover capture and flags, not the private API (13).\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, 81 out of 100, up to 3.1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 81: OpenAPI 3.1 served without a login, 1,742 paths and 2,347 operations, and typed JSON Schema inputs on the MCP tools (25). llms.txt, and every docs page has a Markdown copy at the same address with .md (10). 1,487 of 2,347 operations (63 per cent) have a description. MCP tool descriptions average 708 characters and say when to use a tool and what to call first (16). 1,243 enums across 4,792 schemas and a required scope on most operations (13). 706 examples in the spec. It documents 400 on 224 operations and 429 on 55, and the docs show the error shape with examples (9). Dated public changelog with RSS, but the spec version is fixed at 1.0.0 and the API has no versions (8).\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. Security \u0026 auth, 84 out of 100, up to 2.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 84: OAuth 2 with PKCE, 226 scopes, a revocation endpoint and dynamic registration, or personal API keys with scopes, project limits and rolling. A key can still be created with full access, and keys found in public GitHub repositories are rolled automatically (28). Read-only mode, filters by product area or tool, project pinning, and a typed confirmation for 18 admin actions (18). The MCP docs warn about prompt injection and tell users to review tool calls, and the CLI escapes informational responses. No further mitigation is documented for event and replay data that end users wrote (9). Activity logs with an API, MCP calls recorded with the caller's IP, and an admin view of every key with last use. Longer retention needs a platform package (12). security.txt valid to 30 August 2027, Bugcrowd disclosure programme paid in merchandise, public SOC 2 Type 2 report, annual penetration test and a public advisories page (17).\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## 6. Transparency \u0026 trust, 83 out of 100, up to 1.5 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 71, provenance 94.\n\nWhy it scored 83: MIT outside the `ee` directory, which has its own licence and is part of what PostHog Cloud runs (25 of 30). Privacy policy, a self-serve DPA and the terms agree. The terms let PostHog use de-identified customer content to train its own models unless the customer opts out, and bar third parties from training on it. The privacy policy gives no retention periods, while the pricing page gives 1 year on the free plan and 7 on paid (22). No deprecation policy was found, and the query docs reserve the right to restrict export-like queries without notice. 16 MCP tools carry a pointer to their replacement (4). Sub-processor list updated 12 June 2026 with locations, 14 days' notice of changes, and data in Virginia or Germany (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: posthog.com, registered 2020-01-23 (6 years) (11 of 15)\n- Terms of service: read, states 7 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points (8 of 10)\n\n## 7. Maintenance \u0026 community, 89 out of 100, up to 1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 89: The changelog's newest entry is 5 October 2026 and the repository's newest commit is 7 October 2026 (30). 292 dated changelog entries since 9 July 2026 (20). Public changelog, community questions and in-app support. The repository shows 5,626 open issues and pull requests, and we did not read how quickly they are answered (15 of 25). `io.github.PostHog/mcp` is in the official MCP registry, and the SDKs are current, with posthog-node 5.55.0 on 30 September 2026 and 50 versions in 90 days (15). 142 CI workflow files, four of them for the MCP server (9 of 10, with the npm publishing compromise of November 2025 counted under deductions).\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## Deductions\n\nEach comes off the total. A fixed and documented problem counts for less at the next check.\n\n- -3: 2025-11-24. Malicious versions of posthog-node, posthog-js and six other npm packages were published with a stolen token after an attacker took CI secrets through a pull request workflow. PostHog removed them in about five hours and published a post-mortem on 26 November 2025, so the deduction is reduced (https://posthog.com/blog/nov-24-shai-hulud-attack-post-mortem).\n- -2: 2026-05-29, disclosed 2026-06-02 as PSA-2026-00001 (critical). Researchers used an unsandboxed, outdated Chromium to reach a US Cloud pod and read internal production credentials. PostHog says no customer data was accessed and the credentials were rotated. Fixed and documented (https://posthog.com/handbook/company/security-advisories).\n- -2: 2026-07-11 to 2026-08-04, disclosed 2026-08-21 as PSA-2026-00002 (high). Customer-run nginx proxies set up as PostHog's guide showed sent traffic to released AWS addresses, and a researcher read traffic from six EU customers. The report sat in triage for five weeks. Fixed and documented (https://posthog.com/handbook/company/security-advisories).\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- unchecked: PyPI weekly downloads for posthog, pypistats.org answered 429\n- unchecked: how quickly issues on PostHog/posthog are answered, we read the repository by clone and the GitHub API count only\n- unchecked: the live `tools/list` response of the MCP server, which needs a token. Tool counts and annotations come from services/mcp/schema in the repository and the docs tools reference\n- unchecked: activity log retention by platform package, posthog.com/platform-packages did not return content to our reader\n- unchecked: the `ee` directory's licence text\n- The status page lists 'Phishing emails sent via PostHog invite system' on 24 April 2026. We did not read its detail and made no deduction for it\n- No idempotency key or event de-duplication rule was found in the capture docs we read\n- The newest advisory PSA-2026-00002 concerns customer-run proxies. We deducted because PostHog's own guide showed the unsafe configuration and its triage took five weeks\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- 31 incidents on the status page between 9 July and 6 October 2026, four of them analytics query timeouts or failures\n- Three security incidents in twelve months, among them malicious npm SDK versions on 24 November 2025\n- API queries stop at 10 seconds of execution, three at a time per project, with an hourly read budget on personal API keys\n- No API versioning or deprecation policy was found, and the query docs reserve the right to restrict export-like queries without notice\n- Customer content can be used to train PostHog's own models unless the customer opts out in settings\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- Add `?readonly=true` or the `x-posthog-read-only` header to the MCP URL unless the task needs writes\n- Pin the session with `x-posthog-project-id`, which also removes the `switch-project` and `switch-organization` tools\n- In CLI mode run `info \u003ctool\u003e` once before `call`, and send one `exec` command per request\n- On a 429 with code `api_queries_budget_exceeded`, wait for `Retry-After` and read `X-PostHog-Query-Budget-Remaining-Bytes`\n- Page SQL results by keyset on `timestamp`. `OFFSET` returns 400 for personal API keys, and results cap at 50,000 rows\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": "B",
    "score": 68.4,
    "assessed": "2026-10-07",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 40,
        "maxGain": 7.5,
        "reason": "No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Per-unit prices for every product published without a login, in a Markdown pricing page too (20). Free plan with no card (20). A person signs up in a browser and creates a key or approves OAuth (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": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 74,
        "maxGain": 5.2,
        "reason": "Graded on PostHog Cloud with the hosted lines. Status page on incident.io at posthogstatus.com with per-region components, among them MCP Server and REST API Query endpoints (20). 31 incidents between 9 July and 6 October 2026. Four were analytics query timeouts or failures (15 July for 67 minutes, 31 August open for 27 hours 35 minutes with load shed after 4 hours, 10 September for 9 minutes, 30 September for 2 hours 6 minutes), plus US API errors for 65 minutes on 19 August and MCP sign-in from ChatGPT failing for 20 hours on 10 August. None was marked a full outage of the API, so 10 of 30. Rate limits published with numbers per endpoint class (15). The query read budget answers 429 with `Retry-After` and budget headers, but there is no backoff guidance for the general limits and no idempotency keys for writes were found (9). 99.95 per cent uptime SLA in the terms for the Enterprise package (10). The REST API is generally available and the MCP docs carry no beta label (10).",
        "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": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 78,
        "maxGain": 3.6,
        "reason": "1,096 MCP tools is far past 30 (5). Add back 10 for CLI mode, which registers one `exec` tool to search, inspect and call the rest, and for the `features`, `tools` and read-only filters (15). Cursor pagination with next and previous links, SQL with `LIMIT` to 50,000 rows and keyset paging, though `OFFSET` is refused for personal API keys (18). Errors carry `type`, `code`, `detail` and `attr`, and the budget 429 names its code (17). Every MCP tool has readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and idempotentHint (592 read-only, 135 destructive), and 18 admin actions are split into prepare and execute steps. No idempotency keys on REST writes (15). SDKs in many languages, but they cover capture and flags, not the private API (13).",
        "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": 81,
        "maxGain": 3.1,
        "reason": "OpenAPI 3.1 served without a login, 1,742 paths and 2,347 operations, and typed JSON Schema inputs on the MCP tools (25). llms.txt, and every docs page has a Markdown copy at the same address with .md (10). 1,487 of 2,347 operations (63 per cent) have a description. MCP tool descriptions average 708 characters and say when to use a tool and what to call first (16). 1,243 enums across 4,792 schemas and a required scope on most operations (13). 706 examples in the spec. It documents 400 on 224 operations and 429 on 55, and the docs show the error shape with examples (9). Dated public changelog with RSS, but the spec version is fixed at 1.0.0 and the API has no versions (8).",
        "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": 84,
        "maxGain": 2.8,
        "reason": "OAuth 2 with PKCE, 226 scopes, a revocation endpoint and dynamic registration, or personal API keys with scopes, project limits and rolling. A key can still be created with full access, and keys found in public GitHub repositories are rolled automatically (28). Read-only mode, filters by product area or tool, project pinning, and a typed confirmation for 18 admin actions (18). The MCP docs warn about prompt injection and tell users to review tool calls, and the CLI escapes informational responses. No further mitigation is documented for event and replay data that end users wrote (9). Activity logs with an API, MCP calls recorded with the caller's IP, and an admin view of every key with last use. Longer retention needs a platform package (12). security.txt valid to 30 August 2027, Bugcrowd disclosure programme paid in merchandise, public SOC 2 Type 2 report, annual penetration test and a public advisories page (17).",
        "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": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 83,
        "maxGain": 1.5,
        "reason": "MIT outside the `ee` directory, which has its own licence and is part of what PostHog Cloud runs (25 of 30). Privacy policy, a self-serve DPA and the terms agree. The terms let PostHog use de-identified customer content to train its own models unless the customer opts out, and bar third parties from training on it. The privacy policy gives no retention periods, while the pricing page gives 1 year on the free plan and 7 on paid (22). No deprecation policy was found, and the query docs reserve the right to restrict export-like queries without notice. 16 MCP tools carry a pointer to their replacement (4). Sub-processor list updated 12 June 2026 with locations, 14 days' notice of changes, and data in Virginia or Germany (20).",
        "blend": "editorial 71, provenance 94",
        "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"
      },
      {
        "key": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 89,
        "maxGain": 1,
        "reason": "The changelog's newest entry is 5 October 2026 and the repository's newest commit is 7 October 2026 (30). 292 dated changelog entries since 9 July 2026 (20). Public changelog, community questions and in-app support. The repository shows 5,626 open issues and pull requests, and we did not read how quickly they are answered (15 of 25). `io.github.PostHog/mcp` is in the official MCP registry, and the SDKs are current, with posthog-node 5.55.0 on 30 September 2026 and 50 versions in 90 days (15). 142 CI workflow files, four of them for the MCP server (9 of 10, with the npm publishing compromise of November 2025 counted under deductions).",
        "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"
      }
    ],
    "provenance": [
      {
        "label": "Domain age",
        "value": "posthog.com, registered 2020-01-23 (6 years)",
        "points": 11,
        "max": 15
      },
      {
        "label": "Terms of service",
        "value": "read, states 7 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 1 clause that costs points",
        "points": 8,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "deductions": [
      "-3: 2025-11-24. Malicious versions of posthog-node, posthog-js and six other npm packages were published with a stolen token after an attacker took CI secrets through a pull request workflow. PostHog removed them in about five hours and published a post-mortem on 26 November 2025, so the deduction is reduced (https://posthog.com/blog/nov-24-shai-hulud-attack-post-mortem).",
      "-2: 2026-05-29, disclosed 2026-06-02 as PSA-2026-00001 (critical). Researchers used an unsandboxed, outdated Chromium to reach a US Cloud pod and read internal production credentials. PostHog says no customer data was accessed and the credentials were rotated. Fixed and documented (https://posthog.com/handbook/company/security-advisories).",
      "-2: 2026-07-11 to 2026-08-04, disclosed 2026-08-21 as PSA-2026-00002 (high). Customer-run nginx proxies set up as PostHog's guide showed sent traffic to released AWS addresses, and a researcher read traffic from six EU customers. The report sat in triage for five weeks. Fixed and documented (https://posthog.com/handbook/company/security-advisories)."
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "unchecked: PyPI weekly downloads for posthog, pypistats.org answered 429",
      "unchecked: how quickly issues on PostHog/posthog are answered, we read the repository by clone and the GitHub API count only",
      "unchecked: the live `tools/list` response of the MCP server, which needs a token. Tool counts and annotations come from services/mcp/schema in the repository and the docs tools reference",
      "unchecked: activity log retention by platform package, posthog.com/platform-packages did not return content to our reader",
      "unchecked: the `ee` directory's licence text",
      "The status page lists 'Phishing emails sent via PostHog invite system' on 24 April 2026. We did not read its detail and made no deduction for it",
      "No idempotency key or event de-duplication rule was found in the capture docs we read",
      "The newest advisory PSA-2026-00002 concerns customer-run proxies. We deducted because PostHog's own guide showed the unsafe configuration and its triage took five weeks"
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "31 incidents on the status page between 9 July and 6 October 2026, four of them analytics query timeouts or failures",
      "Three security incidents in twelve months, among them malicious npm SDK versions on 24 November 2025",
      "API queries stop at 10 seconds of execution, three at a time per project, with an hourly read budget on personal API keys",
      "No API versioning or deprecation policy was found, and the query docs reserve the right to restrict export-like queries without notice",
      "Customer content can be used to train PostHog's own models unless the customer opts out in settings"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Add `?readonly=true` or the `x-posthog-read-only` header to the MCP URL unless the task needs writes",
      "Pin the session with `x-posthog-project-id`, which also removes the `switch-project` and `switch-organization` tools",
      "In CLI mode run `info \u003ctool\u003e` once before `call`, and send one `exec` command per request",
      "On a 429 with code `api_queries_budget_exceeded`, wait for `Retry-After` and read `X-PostHog-Query-Budget-Remaining-Bytes`",
      "Page SQL results by keyset on `timestamp`. `OFFSET` returns 400 for personal API keys, and results cap at 50,000 rows"
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-08",
    "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"
  }
}