Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to CSL-Core

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Proof-of-behavior enforcement for AI agents. Declare behavioral constraints, enforce at runtime, produce SHA-256 hash-chained audit trails. Supports covenants (permit/forbid/require), real-time verification, and cross-agent trust handshakes.
      4
      40
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Deterministic policy enforcement for AI agent tool calls. It evaluates every tool call against user-defined rules before execution, with no LLM in the authorization path.
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A runtime gate for coding agents. Blocks the tool calls that wreck a repo (force-push main, rm -rf, secret exfiltration, CI wipe) and lets normal build and commit work through. Machine-checked git-branch core (z3); the rest is high-precision heuristics. Tested on 3,790 real CI commands, 0 false blocks.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      Enables formal verification of LLM outputs against compliance ontologies using Z3 SMT solver. Validates that AI-generated content adheres to regulatory requirements like HIPAA or mortgage compliance rules.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables deterministic verification for AI assistants by executing Python code that uses symbolic engines like SymPy and Z3 for math, logic, and code analysis.
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enforces policy controls for AI agents, including spend limits, action approvals, kill switch, scoped credentials, dry-run diffs, loop prevention, and auditable hash-chained logs.
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.3/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct activity on CSL policies: generating a scaffold, explaining in Markdown, simulating against inputs, verifying with Z3, verifying with TLA+, and analyzing the state space. The descriptions clearly differentiate them, especially verify_policy vs tla_verify by specifying different verification scopes (logical consistency vs temporal safety).

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (explain_policy, scaffold_policy, simulate_policy, verify_policy), but tla_verify and universe_info deviate: tla_verify uses a proper noun prefix, and universe_info is noun_noun. This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a CSL policy toolkit. It covers creation, explanation, simulation, logical verification, temporal verification, and state-space analysis without being over- or under-populated.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the essential policy lifecycle: generate (scaffold), understand (explain, universe_info), test (simulate), verify (verify_policy, tla_verify). No obvious missing functionality like editing or compilation, as verification already includes IR compilation.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessSlow