Item detail
github.com

yogthos/chiasmus

RepoRadar surfaced yogthos/chiasmus — a formal verification mcp — into the Developer Tools section, where it sits at Gold tier with a 'try now' verdict. Its strongest signal is workflow potential, scored 9.9 out of 10.

Score8.4
Popularity1.0
Risknone
TierGold
Score breakdown
Usefulness8.0
Novelty8.0
Momentum6.0
Maturity6.6
Open-source/build8.4
Evidence8.0
Workflow potential9.9
Setup ease6.4

Popularity is tracked separately. Support, ads, sponsorships, and tips never affect these signals.

Why it matters

Useful for developers who want stronger answers than a normal code-search agent can provide when the question is about invariants, policy conflicts, or whether a path is actually reachable.

Who should use it

Developers checking RBAC conflicts, validation drift, and reachability questionsSecurity and reliability teams who want more than string matching from an agent-assisted reviewAgent builders experimenting with solver-backed MCP toolsPower users who want formal analysis in a CLI agent workflow

Who should skip it

Move on from yogthos/chiasmus if the licensing terms, language support, or platform requirements do not fit your project.

About this signal

yogthos/chiasmus is tracked by RepoRadar as a formal verification mcp in the Developer Tools section. It was first seen on 2026-06-29 and last updated on 2026-06-29. The current verdict is 'try now' with a Gold tier and moderate setup difficulty. The standout signals for yogthos/chiasmus are workflow potential (9.9) and open-source/build quality (8.4), while momentum (6.0) trails — that balance shapes where it fits best. 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 yogthos/chiasmus a composite score of 8.4 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 1.0 and never affects the composite score or tier. The risk label of 'none' 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

No inherent user-impacting risk is flagged from the captured evidence.

Evidence links
Closest alternatives / related signals
mcpformal-verificationz3prologdeveloper-toolsapache-2.0