Score breakdown
Popularity is tracked separately. Support, ads, sponsorships, and tips never affect these signals.
Why it matters
Useful for people already running Hermes and wanting a much stronger operations surface than raw terminals and config files, but the combined browser access to terminals, files, sessions, and cron makes it high-blast-radius infrastructure that should stay on trusted hosts only.
Who should use it
Who should skip it
Avoid running xaspx/hermes-control-interface in production until you have reviewed its permissions, data-access scope, and failure modes in a sandbox.
About this signal
xaspx/hermes-control-interface is tracked by RepoRadar as a app in the Agent Ops / Dashboards section. It was first seen on 2026-06-26 and last updated on 2026-06-26. The current verdict is 'worth watch' with a Gold tier and moderate setup difficulty. Across RepoRadar's eight signals, xaspx/hermes-control-interface is strongest on maturity (8.9) and workflow potential (8.9) and weakest on setup ease (6.4) — a profile worth weighing against your own priorities. This page summarizes the evidence RepoRadar has captured from captured source metadata. The score, tier, risk label, and verdict on this page are never influenced by sponsorship, ads, or tips — they reflect only the usefulness, popularity, novelty, momentum, maturity, and evidence signals described in the RepoRadar methodology.
How this item is evaluated
RepoRadar assigned xaspx/hermes-control-interface a composite score of 8.1 out of 10, placing it in the Gold tier. This score combines weighted sub-signals: usefulness (35%), novelty (18%), momentum (14%), maturity (10%), open-source/build quality (7%), evidence quality (6%), workflow potential (6%), and setup ease (4%). Popularity is tracked separately at 785.0 and never affects the composite score or tier. The risk label of 'high' reflects inherent user-impacting hazards, not generic novelty. Items with no risk flag may still require normal code review before production use.
Putting this into practice? Read How to vet an AI agent or MCP server before you wire it in for the checklist behind this score.
Risk explanation
The browser UI exposes terminals, file editing, session views, cron management, and MCP controls in one place, so a weak password or exposed host would hand over most of the agent stack at once; The README describes role-based access and a single password gate, which is good baseline hygiene but not a substitute for trusted-network placement and host hardening; Because it can browse and edit workspace files as well as manage running agents, it should be treated like privileged admin infrastructure rather than a passive monitoring dashboard.