A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceEnables verification of AI coding agent self-reports against git diff truth and a deterministic gate, producing pass/regenerate/reject directives to ensure claimed work matches actual changes.
6
AGPL 3.0
did-it
Related Servers
Alternatives to did-it
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceVerifies AI agent completion claims by checking that claimed output files exist and are fresh, acting as a lightweight physical telemetry gate.13 npm4MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceDetects and reports when AI coding agents modify files outside their declared task scope, comparing declared globs and categories with actual changes.MIT
- FlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables coding agents to perform workspace-confined file operations, read-only Git inspection, and structured shell commands, while requiring out-of-band human approval for mutations and external executions and maintaining an audit trail.143-
- FlicenseCqualityCmaintenanceA fail-closed control layer for coding agents that injects LAND context each turn, blocks done-claims that lack live proof, and freezes the agent's seat after such a block, so a file merely existing on disk can never be passed off as a receipt of work.4-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceCommit-time audit engine for AI coding agents. Scans git diffs with 24 audit rules, writes HMAC-signed tamper-evident audit history, and ships MCP tools for governance aggregation.44MIT
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one inspects raw Git changes, the other verifies claimed actions against the working tree. No overlap or ambiguity; an agent can easily select the right tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'inspect_actual_changes' and 'verify_claimed_actions'. The verbs are descriptive and the structure is uniform.
Tool Count4/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal, but its purpose is narrowly scoped to Git verification. The two tools cover the core inspection and verification workflows, so the count is appropriate for the domain, though it edges toward thinness.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface fully covers the server's stated purpose of checking actual Git state and verifying claims against it. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for this verification-focused domain; it provides the essential inspect and verify capabilities.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues