gotoHuman by gotoHuman

# Fix list: gotoHuman

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/gotohuman, the October 2026 research run, assessed 1 October 2026. Grade E, 43.9 out of 100.

This 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.

For a coding agent working on gotoHuman: 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.

## 1. Reliability, 20 out of 100, up to 16 more on the total

Why it scored 20: No public status page found (0), so there's no readable incident history (5). No rate limits published for the API (0). No 429 or overload guidance for the API, but webhook deliveries retry up to 7 times with backoff from about 1 minute to 6 hours and carry an `Idempotency-Key` header (5 of 15). No SLA, and the terms say there are no availability commitments unless an order form adds them (0). The API isn't labelled beta (10).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):

Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.

- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).
- 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.
- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.
- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.
- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.
- 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.
- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.
- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).
- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.
- 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.

## 2. Security & auth, 44 out of 100, up to 9.8 more on the total

Why it scored 44: One workspace API key in an `x-api-key` header, created in the dashboard, with no scopes found (20). No read-only or scoped keys found, and an `autoApprove` flag lets the caller skip the human (3 of 20). It returns answers from reviewers you assigned, not third-party content (10). Each result carries the responding user and timestamp, history runs 7 to 90 days by plan, and audit logs are on Business only (8 of 15). No security.txt (404), no disclosure policy or bounty found, and no SOC 2 or ISO 27001 of its own. The site says its core services are SOC 3 and ISO 27001 certified, which reads as the hosting provider (3 of 20).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):

- 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.
- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.
- 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.
- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.
- 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.

## 3. Payments & pricing, 30 out of 100, up to 8.8 more on the total

Why it scored 30: No machine payment protocol (0). Plan prices are public, $0, $99, $350 and $950 a month, with no per-review price (10). Free plan at $0 for 1 user and 300 reviews a month, and the pricing page asks for no card (20). A person signs up in the browser and creates the key (0).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):

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.
- 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.
- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.
- 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.

## 4. Schema & documentation, 49 out of 100, up to 8.3 more on the total

Why it scored 49: No public OpenAPI for the HTTP API. The 3 MCP tools have typed inputs, but the review data itself is an untyped record (10 of 25). llms.txt and a Markdown copy of every page (10). Tool descriptions say which tool to call first and API pages state purpose, with no guidance on when not to use them (12 of 20). Review data is free-form by design, shaped by the review type you build in the dashboard (7 of 15). SDK, n8n, Make and HTTP examples, but no documented error responses (7 of 15). No API versioning or public changelog. The n8n node has release notes on GitHub (3 of 15). The API reference and the SDK guide disagree, `data` and a required `agentId` in one, `fields` and an optional `agentId` in the other.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):

APIs and MCP servers.

- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).
- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.
- 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.
- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.
- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.
- 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.

## 5. Agent ergonomics, 62 out of 100, up to 6.2 more on the total

Why it scored 62: 3 compact MCP tools and small JSON responses (25). The query endpoint filters by response and field values and caps at 500 rows, with no cursor (12 of 20). Error responses aren't documented. The SDK throws the status and message and the MCP server returns `isError` with the text (5 of 20). No idempotency key on review creation, an `updateForReviewId` in the SDK to revise a request, and no MCP annotations (5 of 20). Three required fields and official SDKs in TypeScript and Python (15).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):

- 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).
- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.
- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.
- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.
- 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.

## 6. Transparency & trust, 55 out of 100, up to 3.9 more on the total

Made of editorial 54, provenance 55.

Why it scored 55: Closed service under German law with clear terms, and MIT-licensed SDKs and MCP server (18 of 30). Terms delete customer data within 30 days of termination and rule out training on it, the privacy policy says processing is mainly in the EU or EEA with a DPA on request, and the pricing page sets history at 7, 60 or 90 days or custom. They agree, but no retention period is given for personal data beyond 'as long as necessary' (20 of 30). Terms promise 30 days' notice of material changes, and we found no dated deprecation notices (8 of 20). Processing location stated, processors listed by type with only Stripe named (8 of 20).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):

- 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.
- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).
- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.
- 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.

Provenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):

- Domain age: gotohuman.com, no registry record we could read (0 of 15)
- Status page: not found (0 of 10)
- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)
- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)

## 7. Maintenance & community, 64 out of 100, up to 3.2 more on the total

Why it scored 64: n8n-nodes-gotohuman 0.4.0 shipped on 2026-09-24 (30). That's the only release we found since 3 July. The TypeScript SDK 0.3.6 and Python SDK 0.2.4 are from 2026-06-03 and the MCP server 0.2.2 from 2026-06-01. One release of the three the line asks for (7 of 20). Small public repositories with 1 open issue on the MCP server, no public changelog, email support from Team (8 of 25). Current official SDKs in two languages (15). The MCP server's range for the MCP SDK starts at ^1.7.0 and we found no CI on the repositories (4 of 10).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):

- 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.
- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.
- 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.
- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).
- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.

Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.

## What we couldn't check

What 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.

- Whether reviews expire or can be given a deadline. We found nothing in the docs.
- Whether webhooks are signed. The docs mention an `Idempotency-Key` header but no signature.
- Which of `data` or `fields` the API expects today, since the reference and the SDK disagree.
- Whether the Free plan ever asks for a card. The pricing page doesn't say.

## Weaknesses

- No status page, published rate limits or documented error responses
- No review expiry or timeout that we could find in the docs
- Review routing and the Reviews API start at $99 a month, audit logs at $950
- The API reference and the SDK guide disagree on field names and on whether `agentId` is required
- No security.txt, disclosure policy or own SOC 2 report

## What costs an agent a turn today

The notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.

- Call `get-form-schema` before `request-human-review-with-form`, since the field data must match the review type
- Send `agentId` on every API request, because the API reference marks it required even though the JS SDK doesn't
- Pass a `webhookUrl` per request when the review type has no default, or the answer has nowhere to go
- Deduplicate webhook calls on the `Idempotency-Key` header, since delivery is at least once
- Set your own deadline on the agent side and treat silence as a rejection

## What the review panel asked for

- a dated API changelog
- review expiry
- server-side autoApprove control
- signed webhooks

## When it's done

Send 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.