{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "robot-framework",
    "name": "Robot Framework",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/robot-framework",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Robot Framework\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/robot-framework, the October 2026 research run, assessed 14 October 2026. Grade BB, 76.4 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 Robot Framework: 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. Security \u0026 auth, 50 out of 100, up to 8.8 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 50: Graded as a framework. It has no credential of its own. Secrets come from variables, files or the environment, and log.html records keyword arguments unless `--removekeywords` strips them (15 of 30). `--dryrun` checks a suite without running keywords. No sandbox or approval hook, and suites run with the owner's full rights (8 of 20). It returns no untrusted content itself, though libraries read pages and windows (10 of 15). output.xml or output.json and log.html record every keyword, its arguments and status (13 of 15). No SECURITY.md, no security.txt on robotframework.org and no repository advisories found (4 of 20).\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## 2. Payments \u0026 pricing, 60 out of 100, up to 5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 60: Free, self-hosted, nothing to buy, so 20 + 20 + 20 under the self-hosted rule. No payment protocol (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## 3. Agent ergonomics, 78 out of 100, up to 3.6 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 78: The command line adds no tool definitions to an agent's context, and `--loglevel`, `--removekeywords` and `--maxerrorlines` size the output (20 of 25). `--test`, `--suite`, `--include`, `--exclude` and `--rerunfailed` select what runs (20). The exit code counts failures and distinguishes data errors (252) and internal errors (255), and messages name the failing keyword (16 of 20). `--dryrun` validates a suite without side effects and `--rerunfailed` repeats only failures. Whether a keyword is safe to retry depends on the library (12 of 20). Few required arguments and a Python API, with other languages reached through the remote library interface rather than official SDKs (10 of 15).\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, 86 out of 100, up to 2.3 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 86: Graded as a framework. JSON schemas for results, executable suites and Libdoc library specs, and XSDs for XML output, in doc/schema. There is no tool schema for an agent because no official MCP server exists (20 of 25). llms.txt, llms-full.txt and a raw Markdown copy of each page on robotframework.org (10). The User Guide explains each option and when to use it (16 of 20). Libdoc specs type keyword arguments, and keyword argument type hints drive conversion (12 of 15). Many examples, and return codes are documented in a table (13 of 15). Versioned releases with full release notes for each (15).\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. Transparency \u0026 trust, 76 out of 100, up to 2.1 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 78, provenance 74.\n\nWhy it scored 76: Apache-2.0 (30). The framework runs locally and collects nothing found in the source. The privacy policy covers only the websites, with Google Analytics and 50 months' retention stated (18 of 30). Deprecated functionality is listed in each release's notes with the version that removes them, such as the Telnet library in 7.5 (16 of 20). No telemetry code found in a search of the source, and the docs do not say so either way (14 of 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- Privacy policy: read, states 5 of the 8 things a reader expects (7.8 of 10)\n- Status page: not found (0 of 10)\n- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)\n\n## 6. Reliability, 95 out of 100, up to 1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 95: Scored as local software. Official PyPI package with Python 3.8 or later and classifiers up to 3.15 (20). Unit tests and acceptance tests on CPython and PyPy run in public GitHub Actions and passed on master on 6 October 2026 (25). 311 open issues and pull requests on a project started on GitHub in 2014. Of the 15 newest, 7 had at least one reply, and none reports a crash (20 of 25). Release notes carry a backwards incompatible changes section and a deprecated functionality section, and the project follows major.minor feature releases with bug-fix releases (15). Version 7.5, Development Status Production/Stable (15).\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## 7. Maintenance \u0026 community, 90 out of 100, up to 0.9 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 90: Version 7.5 on 14 September 2026, 30 days before this check (30). 7.5b1, 7.5rc1 and 7.5 since 17 July 2026 (20). 162 commits since 14 July, and recent issues and pull requests get replies from maintainers within days, with some newer ones unanswered (20 of 25). Current official package on PyPI with no MCP server, so not in the MCP registry (10 of 15). Dependabot updates and passing CI on master (10).\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## 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: whether any core library stores or redacts secrets in logs by default beyond `--removekeywords`\n- The home page showed 7.4.2 on 14 October 2026, a month after 7.5.\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- Desktop and mobile control depend on separate libraries, such as AppiumLibrary and AutoItLibrary, maintained outside the core project\n- No official MCP server. MCP servers for Robot Framework found on PyPI and Glama are community projects\n- No SECURITY.md, no security.txt on robotframework.org and no published repository advisories\n- robotframework.org still showed version 7.4.2 on 14 October 2026, a month after 7.5 shipped\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- Install with `pip install robotframework` and check with `robot --version`. Add the library for the target app, such as AppiumLibrary, separately\n- Read the exit code. It is the number of failed tests or tasks up to 250, and 252, 253 or 255 mean bad input, a user stop or an internal error\n- Use `--dryrun` to validate a suite without running keywords, and `--rerunfailed output.xml` to repeat only failures\n- Convert results with `rebot --output output.json output.xml` for JSON that matches doc/schema/result.json\n- Keep secrets out of keyword arguments, because log.html records arguments unless keywords are removed with `--removekeywords`\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": "BB",
    "score": 76.4,
    "assessed": "2026-10-14",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 50,
        "maxGain": 8.8,
        "reason": "Graded as a framework. It has no credential of its own. Secrets come from variables, files or the environment, and log.html records keyword arguments unless `--removekeywords` strips them (15 of 30). `--dryrun` checks a suite without running keywords. No sandbox or approval hook, and suites run with the owner's full rights (8 of 20). It returns no untrusted content itself, though libraries read pages and windows (10 of 15). output.xml or output.json and log.html record every keyword, its arguments and status (13 of 15). No SECURITY.md, no security.txt on robotframework.org and no repository advisories found (4 of 20).",
        "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": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 60,
        "maxGain": 5,
        "reason": "Free, self-hosted, nothing to buy, so 20 + 20 + 20 under the self-hosted rule. No payment protocol (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": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 78,
        "maxGain": 3.6,
        "reason": "The command line adds no tool definitions to an agent's context, and `--loglevel`, `--removekeywords` and `--maxerrorlines` size the output (20 of 25). `--test`, `--suite`, `--include`, `--exclude` and `--rerunfailed` select what runs (20). The exit code counts failures and distinguishes data errors (252) and internal errors (255), and messages name the failing keyword (16 of 20). `--dryrun` validates a suite without side effects and `--rerunfailed` repeats only failures. Whether a keyword is safe to retry depends on the library (12 of 20). Few required arguments and a Python API, with other languages reached through the remote library interface rather than official SDKs (10 of 15).",
        "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": 86,
        "maxGain": 2.3,
        "reason": "Graded as a framework. JSON schemas for results, executable suites and Libdoc library specs, and XSDs for XML output, in doc/schema. There is no tool schema for an agent because no official MCP server exists (20 of 25). llms.txt, llms-full.txt and a raw Markdown copy of each page on robotframework.org (10). The User Guide explains each option and when to use it (16 of 20). Libdoc specs type keyword arguments, and keyword argument type hints drive conversion (12 of 15). Many examples, and return codes are documented in a table (13 of 15). Versioned releases with full release notes for each (15).",
        "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": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 76,
        "maxGain": 2.1,
        "reason": "Apache-2.0 (30). The framework runs locally and collects nothing found in the source. The privacy policy covers only the websites, with Google Analytics and 50 months' retention stated (18 of 30). Deprecated functionality is listed in each release's notes with the version that removes them, such as the Telnet library in 7.5 (16 of 20). No telemetry code found in a search of the source, and the docs do not say so either way (14 of 20).",
        "blend": "editorial 78, provenance 74",
        "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": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 95,
        "maxGain": 1,
        "reason": "Scored as local software. Official PyPI package with Python 3.8 or later and classifiers up to 3.15 (20). Unit tests and acceptance tests on CPython and PyPy run in public GitHub Actions and passed on master on 6 October 2026 (25). 311 open issues and pull requests on a project started on GitHub in 2014. Of the 15 newest, 7 had at least one reply, and none reports a crash (20 of 25). Release notes carry a backwards incompatible changes section and a deprecated functionality section, and the project follows major.minor feature releases with bug-fix releases (15). Version 7.5, Development Status Production/Stable (15).",
        "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": 90,
        "maxGain": 0.9,
        "reason": "Version 7.5 on 14 September 2026, 30 days before this check (30). 7.5b1, 7.5rc1 and 7.5 since 17 July 2026 (20). 162 commits since 14 July, and recent issues and pull requests get replies from maintainers within days, with some newer ones unanswered (20 of 25). Current official package on PyPI with no MCP server, so not in the MCP registry (10 of 15). Dependabot updates and passing CI on master (10).",
        "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": "Privacy policy",
        "value": "read, states 5 of the 8 things a reader expects",
        "points": 7.8,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Status page",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "unchecked: whether any core library stores or redacts secrets in logs by default beyond `--removekeywords`",
      "The home page showed 7.4.2 on 14 October 2026, a month after 7.5."
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "Desktop and mobile control depend on separate libraries, such as AppiumLibrary and AutoItLibrary, maintained outside the core project",
      "No official MCP server. MCP servers for Robot Framework found on PyPI and Glama are community projects",
      "No SECURITY.md, no security.txt on robotframework.org and no published repository advisories",
      "robotframework.org still showed version 7.4.2 on 14 October 2026, a month after 7.5 shipped"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Install with `pip install robotframework` and check with `robot --version`. Add the library for the target app, such as AppiumLibrary, separately",
      "Read the exit code. It is the number of failed tests or tasks up to 250, and 252, 253 or 255 mean bad input, a user stop or an internal error",
      "Use `--dryrun` to validate a suite without running keywords, and `--rerunfailed output.xml` to repeat only failures",
      "Convert results with `rebot --output output.json output.xml` for JSON that matches doc/schema/result.json",
      "Keep secrets out of keyword arguments, because log.html records arguments unless keywords are removed with `--removekeywords`"
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-14",
    "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"
  }
}