Veris

io.github.vighriday由 GitHub 帳號 vighriday 發布v2.1.8更新於 Oct 25, 2026

Behavioral verification intelligence for AI coding agents. 17 MCP tools. Local-first. MIT.

已驗證STDIO僅桌面開發者工具資料與分析

概覽

AI 產生的概覽

本機 MCP 伺服器,為 TypeScript/JavaScript 變更產生行為差異,讓 AI 編碼助理看清哪些行為變了、有哪些證據支撐。

可以做什麼
分析變更:為儲存庫建立行為圖,並與 git 基準比對,標出新增、刪除與函式體被重寫的節點和邊,每條邊附上解析信心度。評估風險與工作流程:用啟發式風險模型排序受影響區域,並依付款、驗證、Webhook 等語意工作流程分類。規劃驗證:產生對抗性探針,依時間預算挑選最高效益的檢查,並進行 what-if-revert 等反事實分析。記錄證據:以僅追加、雜湊鏈方式保存執行結果並標註信任等級,同時偵測跨執行的漂移。報告:匯出上手地圖與獨立 HTML 儀表板。
適用情境
適合在代理對 TypeScript 或 JavaScript 儲存庫做了大範圍修改後、審查前或 CI 中使用,用來釐清哪些行為改變、其中哪些有驗證支撐。也適合想要依風險排序的測試建議、而不是再裝一個測試執行器或 linter 的團隊。
執行需求
透過 npx 以 stdio 本機程序執行;需要 Node.js,以及具備真實歷史、可解析基準參照的 git 儲存庫(CI 中需 fetch-depth 0)。選用環境變數 VERIS_CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD、VERIS_PLUGINS_DISABLED、VERIS_STATE_DISABLED 可調整行為。在 npm 12 上,執行歷史需要為 better-sqlite3 加上 allowScripts 項目並重新建置。
安裝前請注意
它把儲存庫內容視為不可信輸入,本身從不執行測試。外掛會執行被分析儲存庫中的程式碼且沒有沙箱,因此預設關閉;啟用前會先印出每個外掛的路徑與 SHA-256。代理提交的證據屬於 agent-asserted,權重減半;直接編輯 SQLite 儲存區會破壞雜湊鏈。本機優先、無遙測;設定 VERIS_STATE_DISABLED=1 可零保留。

安裝

在 SourceWeft 中

  1. 開啟 儀表板中的 Veris,將其新增到工作區。
  2. 為需要使用其工具的對話啟用該服務。

Desktop only,透過 STDIO。 STDIO 服務會啟動本機處理程序,因此需要 SourceWeft 桌面主機。

其他 MCP 客戶端

參照 儲存庫 中的啟動說明。

README

[Veris]

Veris

veris — Latin, “of truth”

Your agent just changed 40 files.
What actually broke, and was any of it checked?

[CI] [npm] [MIT] [MCP: 17 tools] [No telemetry] [Self-audit: 55 defects published]


We pointed Veris at Veris — it found 55 defects

Every one is published — what broke, why it mattered, the fix, and the test that proves it: docs/internal/BUG_TRACKER.md

The worst three, in our own tool:

It invented baselines. When git was unavailable, Veris built a "before" state from the first 70% of the current graph and reported the comparison as a real behavioral diff. No flag. No warning. A verification tool was fabricating the thing it verified against.

91% of its call edges were guesses. It matched the trailing name of a call against every declaration sharing that name. console.log() drew an edge to the project's own Logger.log. Measured on a real dependency: 2,804 of 3,077 edges pointed at an ambiguous name.

The graded agent could erase its own failures. Execution results were stored with INSERT OR REPLACE. Post fail, then post pass, and the failure was gone.

We could have fixed these quietly. Publishing them is the point: a tool that tells you what is unverified has no standing to hide its own unverified claims.

This is also the demo. That is the analysis Veris performs, run on itself.


What Veris is

A behavioral diff for AI-written code, speaking the Model Context Protocol so your agent can ask while it is still working — not after you find out in review.

It answers two questions a line diff cannot:

  1. What behavior changed? Not which lines — which behaviors, and what reaches them.
  2. Was any of it actually checked? Published research puts roughly 65% of agent-authored PRs at zero coverage of their own changed lines.

Veris never executes anything. No tests, no sandboxes, no runtime. It reads, models, and tells your agent what is at risk and what evidence exists. Running things stays with the tools that are good at running things.

Veris is notBecause
A test runnerIt executes nothing. It tells your runner what is worth running.
A linter or SAST toolNo rules about style or known-bad patterns. It models behavior change.
An "AI guardrail"That means filtering model output. This is about the code the model writes.
A coverage toolCoverage says which lines ran. Veris says which behaviors changed and what backs them.

The 30-second version

console
$ npx veris-core . --base-ref=origin/main
-> Baseline: origin/main @ 1bebd2ce2e08 -> head 3ed9031421-dirty   Working tree has 4 uncommitted changes; this run is not reproducible from commits alone.-> Graph: 326 nodes, 602 edges (head), 131 tracked files-> Call resolution: 403 resolved (97.1%), 6 single-candidate, 6 ambiguous (no edge emitted)-> Workflows: 15 detected, 3 affected in diff-> Adversarial probes generated: 4

Read lines 2 and 4 again — they are the whole philosophy.

Six calls were too ambiguous to resolve, so Veris drew no edge rather than guessing. The head is marked -dirty because uncommitted changes were included, so the result is not reproducible from commits alone.

Most tools report only what they found. Veris also reports what it could not determine, because a confident wrong answer is worse than an admitted gap.


Install

As an MCP server — one config block, then restart your client:

json
{  "mcpServers": {    "veris": {      "command": "npx",      "args": ["-y", "veris-core", "mcp"]    }  }}

17 tools light up in Claude Code, Cursor, or any MCP-compatible agent.

As a CLI:

bash
npx veris-core .                            # analyze against origin/mainnpx veris-core . --base-ref=HEAD~1          # explicit baselinenpx veris-core . --budget=10 --onboarding   # 10-min plan + onboarding mapnpx veris-core doctor                       # check git, base ref, deps

Needs a git repository with real history. Veris diffs against the merge-base with your base ref. If it cannot establish one, it fails and says why rather than inventing a baseline. In CI: fetch-depth: 0.

On npm 12, run history needs one extra line. npm 12 no longer runs dependency install scripts by default, so better-sqlite3 never fetches its prebuilt binding. Veris still analyzes, diffs, scores risk and plans verification — only run history and cross-run drift need it. The allowlist is per-project and is not inherited from a dependency, so it has to go in your package.json:

json
{ "allowScripts": { "better-sqlite3": true } }

Then npm rebuild better-sqlite3. veris-core doctor reports which mode you are in, and never claims persistence is working when it is not.


How it thinks

mermaid
flowchart TD    A[git-tracked source] -->|ts-morph + TypeScript checker| B[Behavioral graph]    B -->|worktree at merge-base| C{Baseline exists?}    C -->|no| X[Fail loudly<br/>never fabricate]    C -->|yes| D[Diff: added / removed<br/>rewritten-body / edges]    D --> E[Risk · Workflows · Fingerprints · Drift]    E --> F[Probes · Tiered plan · Budget]    F --> G[Coverage from<br/>trust-weighted evidence]    G --> H[17 MCP tools · Dashboard · Reports]    H -->|agent or CI executes| I[report_execution]    I -->|append-only, hash-chained| G
    style X fill:#ff5d6c,stroke:#c1121f,color:#fff    style G fill:#8b5cf6,stroke:#6d28d9,color:#fff    style B fill:#0ea5e9,stroke:#0369a1,color:#fff

The red box is a feature. So is the loop back into coverage.


Three ideas that make it different

1. Every edge declares how certain it is

Most graph tools give you an edge. Veris tells you why it believes the edge:

resolutionMeaning
resolvedThe TypeScript checker identified the declaration. Trustworthy.
heuristicChecker couldn't, but exactly one declaration bears that name.
structuralContainment or an import relationship.
(no edge)Several candidates and nothing distinguishes them. Silence, not a guess.

Anything that must not reason on a guess — a gate, a policy rule — filters for resolved. Missing edges understate coupling. They never invent it.

2. Evidence is append-only, and knows who said it

The agent posting results is usually the agent being judged. So:

jsonc
{ "nodeId": "src/pay.ts::charge",  "result": "pass",  "trustClass": "harness-observed",   // ← default is "agent-asserted"  "producer": "github-actions:e2e" }
Trust classWhoWeight
veris-derivedVeris computed itfull
harness-observedAn external runner saw itfull
agent-assertedThe agent says so — the defaulthalf

Records are hash-chained. A later pass never overwrites an earlier failure; editing the database directly breaks the chain and verifyEvidenceChain() reports exactly where. An agent cannot raise its own assurance by asserting harder.

3. It catches the rewrite that keeps its name

diff
- function chargeCard(amount) { return gateway.charge(amount); }+ function chargeCard(amount) { return gateway.charge(amount * 100); }

Same name. Same callees. Same graph shape. Every name-and-topology comparison sees nothing. Veris hashes the normalized body, so this surfaces as a modifiedNode — while renaming a directory, which used to look like 100% drift, now correctly looks like nothing at all.


What your agent asks

text
veris: analyze_pr_behavior with baseRef=origin/mainveris: list_workflows, then analyze_workflow for the highest-risk oneveris: generate_adversarial_probes, then allocate_budget minutes=15veris: detect_driftveris: what_if_revert nodeIds=[...]

Probes are concrete, not nudges:

Payments / idempotency — Submit a charge twice with the same idempotency key inside a 500 ms window. Invariant: exactly one ledger entry; the second call returns the first result.


Webhooks / replay — Replay a 24-hour-old signed payload with its original signature. Invariant: rejected by timestamp window even though the signature is valid.


Everything else it does

Semantic workflows25 domains — Authentication, Payments, Checkout, Webhooks, Queue, Caching… So the unit is "checkout reliability", not GraphModels.ts.
Risk modelCoupling magnitude, inbound-coupling dominance, runtime criticality — three inputs measuring different things. Every weight in data/risk-config.json, plain-English reasons attached.
Drift detectionFingerprints across runs. Catches silent rewrites, surface changes, oscillating refactors, and deletions.
Budget allocationGiven N minutes, the highest-leverage subset to actually run.
Counterfactualwhat_if_revert — what recovers if this comes out?
Onboarding exportWorkflow-first markdown for a new engineer, or a new agent, on an unfamiliar codebase.
DashboardStandalone HTML. Click a workflow, everything filters. Click-to-copy directives.

Honest limits

Stated plainly, so nobody discovers them the hard way.

  • A workflow is a label, not a path. Classification is a weighted keyword vote over directory names, imports and symbol names. It does not traverse the call graph. Rate-limiting code that imports Redis lands in Caching. Making workflows real paths is the top roadmap item.
  • Coverage is not assurance. It measures how much planned verification has evidence behind it. It is not calibrated against real incidents and does not estimate the probability your code is correct.
  • Risk is a heuristic. Good for ranking what to look at first. Not a defect predictor. No ground truth behind it.
  • Probes are a curated library — real failure modes, written by hand, selected by domain. Not generated from your code.
  • TypeScript and JavaScript only. Python and Go are on the roadmap.
  • Some calls can't be resolved. Dynamic dispatch and untyped JS defeat the checker. Those produce no edge, and the count is in the output.

Upgrading from 2.x? 3.0 has real breaking changes — see UPGRADING.md.


Privacy & security

  • Local-first. All analysis runs on your machine. No telemetry, ever. Nothing about your code leaves the machine.
  • Zero-retention mode — VERIS_STATE_DISABLED=1.
  • No network sockets in the analyzer. stdio and the filesystem only.

Veris is usually pointed at repositories you did not write, so repository content is untrusted input. Plugins execute code from the analyzed repo, so they are off by default — --allow-plugins opts in, and each plugin's path and SHA-256 is printed before it runs. There is no sandbox, and SECURITY.md says so plainly instead of implying otherwise.


Docs

MCP toolsAll 17 tools with recommended flows
ArchitectureDesign invariants and the defect each replaced
Audit trackerAll 55 findings, with evidence
Upgrading2.x → 3.0
SecurityThreat model and reporting
RoadmapWhat is next — and what will never be built
PluginsExtending classification and risk

Contributing

The five things that move the needle most:

  1. Entry-point detection for a framework you know — routes, handlers, queue consumers. This is what turns a workflow from a label into a path.
  2. Labelled repositories for a classification benchmark. The accuracy claim needs ground truth, not more rules.
  3. Probe provenance. The shipped probes are good and uncited; one backed by a public postmortem is worth ten that aren't.
  4. Language adapters — Python, Go.
  5. Calibration data — what Veris flagged that broke, and what it missed. The second is more valuable.

See CONTRIBUTING.md. Open source, sponsor-supported. No paid tier, no gated features, no open-core bait.

MIT — see LICENSE

來源:README.md,提交 8bec168

工具

0
SourceWeft 尚未在沙箱中啟動過該軟體包,因此其工具未知。

版本歷史

1
  1. v2.1.8最新Sep 16, 2026

評分

已滿足適用檢查項的 50%

該評分衡量此收錄條目的完整程度,依據註冊中心條目、端點與公開來源計算得出。它不是對伺服器本身的評價,也不表示伺服器安全或目前可用:可連通性是帶日期的檢查結果,評分也不包含安裝量或使用者評價。

  • 近 30 天內可連通25 分

    請保持端點能夠回應 MCP 握手;SourceWeft 每 30 天探測一次。

  • 已宣告認證方式10 分

    請在註冊中心條目中宣告憑證請求標頭,或保持端點能夠回應探測,以便判定其認證方式。

  • 已列出工具15 分

    請讓伺服器在無憑證時回應 tools/list,或發布可在沙箱中無憑證啟動的軟體包。

  • 描述必需15 分
  • 圖示10 分
  • 文件15 分
  • 授權條款10 分