agentic-flow vs inquirer-search-list — Trust Score Comparison
Side-by-side trust comparison of agentic-flow and inquirer-search-list. Scores based on security, compliance, maintenance, popularity, and ecosystem signals.
agenticflow — Nerq Trust Score 53.2/100 (C-). search — Nerq Trust Score 79.5/100 (B+). search leads by 26.3 points.
Detailed Score Analysis
| Dimension | agenticflow | search |
|---|---|---|
| Security | 90/100 | 90/100 |
| Maintenance | 50/100 | 97/100 |
| Popularity | 0/100 | 100/100 |
| Quality | 65/100 | 55/100 |
| Community | 35/100 | 45/100 |
Five-dimension Nerq trust breakdown (registries: pypi / npm). Scored equally weighted across security, maintenance, popularity, quality, community.
Detailed Metric Comparison
| Metric | agentic-flow | inquirer-search-list |
|---|---|---|
| Trust Score | 65.1/100 | 60.0/100 |
| Grade | C | C |
| Stars | 0 | 0 |
| Category | coding | uncategorized |
| Security | 0 | N/A |
| Compliance | 100 | 100 |
| Maintenance | 1 | N/A |
| Documentation | 1 | N/A |
| EU AI Act Risk | minimal | N/A |
| Verified | No | No |
Verdict
agentic-flow leads with a trust score of 65.1/100 compared to inquirer-search-list's 60.0/100 (a 5.1-point difference). Both agents should be evaluated based on your specific requirements.
Detailed Score Analysis
Five-dimensional trust breakdown for agentic-flow (npm) and inquirer-search-list (npm) from Nerq’s enrichment pipeline. All 5 dimensions scored on 0–100 scales, refreshed every 7 days, covering 5M+ indexed assets across 14 registries.
| Dimension | agentic-flow | inquirer-search-list |
|---|---|---|
| Security | 90/100 | 90/100 |
| Maintenance | 100/100 | 97/100 |
| Popularity | 0/100 | 100/100 |
| Quality | 80/100 | 55/100 |
| Community | 40/100 | 45/100 |
5-Dimension Breakdown
Security — agentic-flow vs inquirer-search-list
Security aggregates dependency vulnerability scans, known CVE exposure, supply-chain hygiene, and adherence to security best practices. On this dimension agentic-flow scores 90/100 (top-tier) while inquirer-search-list scores 90/100 (top-tier). The two are effectively tied on security (both at 90/100). The agentic-flow figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a security score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. A score above 85 implies a clean dependency tree with 0 critical CVEs in the last 90 days; 70–84 tolerates 1–2 medium-severity issues; below 55 usually flags 3+ unresolved advisories. Given the current 90/100 for agentic-flow and 90/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 90.0/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Maintenance — agentic-flow vs inquirer-search-list
Maintenance captures commit cadence, issue turnaround, release frequency, and the health of the project’s active contributor base. On this dimension agentic-flow scores 100/100 (top-tier) while inquirer-search-list scores 97/100 (top-tier). agentic-flow leads by 3 points (100/100 vs 97/100), a narrow margin within measurement noise. The agentic-flow figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a maintenance score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. Scores above 80 correspond to release cadences of 30 days or less and median issue-response times under 7 days; below 50 often means no release in 180+ days. Given the current 100/100 for agentic-flow and 97/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 98.5/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Popularity — agentic-flow vs inquirer-search-list
Popularity measures adoption signals—weekly downloads, dependent packages, GitHub stars, and cross-registry citation density. On this dimension agentic-flow scores 0/100 (weak) while inquirer-search-list scores 100/100 (top-tier). inquirer-search-list leads by 100 points (100/100 vs 0/100), a spread wide enough that teams should weight popularity heavily when choosing. The agentic-flow figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a popularity score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. A score of 90+ indicates the top 1% of the registry by dependent count or weekly downloads; 70–89 is the top 10%; below 40 suggests fewer than 500 weekly downloads. Given the current 0/100 for agentic-flow and 100/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 50.0/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Quality — agentic-flow vs inquirer-search-list
Quality evaluates documentation completeness, test coverage indicators, typed-API availability, and the presence of examples or tutorials. On this dimension agentic-flow scores 80/100 (strong) while inquirer-search-list scores 55/100 (mid-band). agentic-flow leads by 25 points (80/100 vs 55/100), a spread wide enough that teams should weight quality heavily when choosing. The agentic-flow figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a quality score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. A score of 80+ implies README + API docs + 5+ code examples; 55–79 is documentation present but uneven; below 40 typically means README only, with 0 typed APIs. Given the current 80/100 for agentic-flow and 55/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 67.5/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Community — agentic-flow vs inquirer-search-list
Community looks at contributor breadth, issue-response participation, Stack Overflow answer volume, and third-party tutorial ecosystem. On this dimension agentic-flow scores 40/100 (below-average) while inquirer-search-list scores 45/100 (below-average). inquirer-search-list leads by 5 points (45/100 vs 40/100), a moderate gap that matters when community is a hard requirement. The agentic-flow figure is derived from its npm registry footprint; the inquirer-search-list figure from npm. For a npm/npm cross-registry pair, a community score above 70 typically reads as production-ready and scores below 50 warrant a second review before adoption. Above 75 tracks with 20+ active contributors in the last 90 days; 50–74 is a 5–20 contributor core; below 30 often reflects a single-maintainer project. Given the current 40/100 for agentic-flow and 45/100 for inquirer-search-list, the combined midpoint is 42.5/100 — useful as a portfolio-level proxy when both tools coexist in a stack.
Score-Card Summary
Across the 5 measured dimensions, agentic-flow averages 62.0/100 (range 0–100) and inquirer-search-list averages 77.4/100 (range 45–100). agentic-flow leads on 2 dimensions, inquirer-search-list leads on 2, with 1 tied.
| Band | Range | agentic-flow dims | inquirer-search-list dims |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top-tier | 85–100 | 2 | 3 |
| Strong | 70–85 | 1 | 0 |
| Mid-band | 55–70 | 0 | 1 |
| Below-avg | 40–55 | 1 | 1 |
| Weak | 0–40 | 1 | 0 |
Scoring scale: 0–39 weak, 40–54 below-average, 55–69 mid-band, 70–84 strong, 85–100 top-tier. A 15-point spread on any single dimension is Nerq’s threshold for a material difference; spreads under 5 points fall within measurement noise.
Head-to-Head Deltas
| Dimension | agentic-flow | inquirer-search-list | Delta | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security | 90 | 90 | +0 | tied |
| Maintenance | 100 | 97 | +3 | agentic-flow |
| Popularity | 0 | 100 | -100 | inquirer-search-list |
| Quality | 80 | 55 | +25 | agentic-flow |
| Community | 40 | 45 | -5 | inquirer-search-list |
Combined 5-dimension average: agentic-flow 62.0/100, inquirer-search-list 77.4/100, overall spread -15.4 points.
- Max spread: 100 points on Popularity
- Min spread: 0 points on Security
- Dimensions within 10 points: 3/5
- agentic-flow above 70 on: 3/5 dimensions
- inquirer-search-list above 70 on: 3/5 dimensions
Detailed Analysis
Security
Security scores measure dependency vulnerabilities, CVE exposure, and security practices. agentic-flow scores 0 and inquirer-search-list scores N/A on this dimension.
Maintenance & Activity
Activity scores reflect how actively each project is maintained. agentic-flow: 1, inquirer-search-list: N/A.
Documentation
Documentation quality is evaluated based on README, API docs, and example coverage. agentic-flow: 1, inquirer-search-list: N/A.
Community & Adoption
agentic-flow has 0 GitHub stars while inquirer-search-list has 0. Both tools have comparable community sizes, suggesting similar levels of ecosystem support and third-party resources.
When to Choose Each Tool
Choose agentic-flow if you need:
- Higher overall trust score — more reliable for production use
- More actively maintained with faster release cadence
- Better documentation for faster onboarding
Choose inquirer-search-list if you need:
- Consider if it better fits your specific use case
Switching from agentic-flow to inquirer-search-list (or vice versa)
When migrating between agentic-flow and inquirer-search-list, consider these factors:
- API Compatibility: agentic-flow (coding) and inquirer-search-list (uncategorized) serve different categories, so migration may require significant refactoring.
- Security Review: Run a security audit after migration. Check the agentic-flow safety report and inquirer-search-list safety report for known issues.
- Testing: Ensure your test suite covers all integration points before switching in production.
- Community Support: agentic-flow has 0 stars and inquirer-search-list has 0. Larger communities typically mean better Stack Overflow answers and migration guides.
Related Pages
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Comparisons
Last updated: 2026-05-13 | Data refreshed weekly
Disclaimer: Nerq trust scores are automated assessments based on publicly available signals. They are not endorsements or guarantees. Always conduct your own due diligence.