Is Clawith Safe?
Use Clawith with some caution. Clawith is a software tool with a Nerq Trust Score of 66.4/100 (C). It is below the recommended threshold of 70. Data sourced from multiple public sources including package registries, GitHub, NVD, OSV.dev, and OpenSSF Scorecard. Last updated: 2026-03-25. Machine-readable data (JSON).
Is Clawith safe?
CAUTION — Clawith has a Nerq Trust Score of 66.4/100 (C). It has moderate trust signals but shows some areas of concern that warrant attention. Suitable for development use — review security and maintenance signals before production deployment.
Trust Score Breakdown
Key Findings
Details
| Author | Unknown |
| Category | agent_framework |
| Stars | 1,029 |
| Source | https://github.com/dataelement/Clawith |
Popular Alternatives in agent_framework
What Is Clawith?
Clawith is a framework for building autonomous AI agents: OpenClaw for Teams. It has 1,029 GitHub stars. Nerq Trust Score: 66/100 (C).
Nerq independently analyzes every software tool, app, and extension across multiple trust signals including security vulnerabilities, maintenance activity, license compliance, and community adoption.
How Nerq Assesses Clawith's Safety
Nerq evaluates every software tool across 13+ independent trust signals drawn from public sources including GitHub, NVD, OSV.dev, OpenSSF Scorecard, and package registries. These signals are grouped into five core dimensions: Security (known CVEs, dependency vulnerabilities, security policies), Maintenance (commit frequency, release cadence, issue response times), Documentation (README quality, API docs, examples), Compliance (license, regulatory alignment across 52 jurisdictions), and Community (stars, forks, downloads, ecosystem integrations).
Clawith receives an overall Trust Score of 66.4/100 (C), which Nerq considers moderate. This is below the Nerq Verified threshold of 70. We recommend additional due diligence before production deployment.
Nerq updates trust scores continuously as new data becomes available. To get the latest assessment, query the API: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=dataelement/Clawith
Each dimension is weighted according to its importance for the tool's category. For example, Security and Maintenance carry higher weight for tools that handle sensitive data or execute code, while Community and Documentation are weighted more heavily for developer-facing libraries and frameworks. This ensures that Clawith's score reflects the risks most relevant to its actual usage patterns. The final score is a weighted average across all five dimensions, normalized to a 0-100 scale with letter grades from A (highest) to F (lowest).
Who Should Use Clawith?
Clawith is designed for:
- AI engineers building autonomous agent systems
- Research teams experimenting with multi-agent architectures
- Companies creating AI-powered automation workflows
Risk guidance: Clawith is suitable for development and testing environments. Before production deployment, conduct a thorough review of its security posture, review the specific trust signals above, and consider whether a higher-scored alternative meets your requirements.
How to Verify Clawith's Safety Yourself
While Nerq provides automated trust analysis, we recommend these additional steps before adopting any software tool:
- Check the source code — Review the repository's security policy, open issues, and recent commits for signs of active maintenance.
- Scan dependencies — Use tools like
npm audit,pip-audit, orsnykto check for known vulnerabilities in Clawith's dependency tree. - Review permissions — Understand what access Clawith requires. Software tools should follow the principle of least privilege.
- Test in isolation — Run Clawith in a sandboxed environment before granting access to production data or systems.
- Monitor continuously — Use Nerq's API to set up automated trust checks:
GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=dataelement/Clawith - Review the license — Confirm that Clawith's license is compatible with your intended use case. Pay attention to restrictions on commercial use, redistribution, and derivative works. Some AI tools use dual licensing or have separate terms for enterprise customers that differ from the open-source license.
- Check community signals — Look at the project's issue tracker, discussion forums, and social media presence. A healthy community actively reports bugs, contributes fixes, and discusses security concerns openly. Low community engagement may indicate limited peer review of the codebase.
Common Safety Concerns with Clawith
When evaluating whether Clawith is safe, consider these category-specific risks:
Agent frameworks like Clawith can take actions autonomously — executing code, calling APIs, modifying files. Always implement guardrails and human-in-the-loop controls for production deployments.
AI agents built with Clawith may be vulnerable to prompt injection attacks where malicious input causes the agent to take unintended actions. Test for adversarial inputs before deploying.
Autonomous agents can incur unexpected API costs or resource usage. Set budget limits and monitoring alerts when deploying Clawith-based agents.
When using Clawith to orchestrate multiple agents, failures in inter-agent communication can lead to cascading errors, duplicated actions, or deadlocks. Implement circuit breakers and timeout mechanisms to prevent runaway agent loops that can consume resources indefinitely.
Agents built with Clawith that persist memory across sessions can have their context poisoned by adversarial inputs. Once corrupted, the agent may make consistently poor decisions in future interactions. Implement memory validation and periodic context resets for long-running agents.
Best Practices for Using Clawith Safely
Whether you're an individual developer or an enterprise team, these practices will help you get the most from Clawith while minimizing risk:
Configure Clawith agents to require human approval for high-impact actions like payments, data deletion, or external API calls.
Autonomous agents built with Clawith can incur unexpected costs through API calls and resource usage. Set hard spending limits and rate caps.
Log all actions taken by agents built with Clawith. Use observability tools to detect anomalous behavior patterns that could indicate prompt injection or logic errors.
Before deploying Clawith-based agents in production, test with adversarial prompts designed to bypass guardrails and cause unintended actions.
Each agent should have the minimum permissions required. Never give an agent root access, admin credentials, or unrestricted API keys.
When Should You Avoid Clawith?
Even promising tools aren't right for every situation. Consider avoiding Clawith in these scenarios:
- Production environments handling sensitive customer data
- Regulated industries (healthcare, finance, government) without additional compliance review
- Mission-critical systems where downtime has significant business impact
For each scenario, evaluate whether Clawith's trust score of 66.4/100 meets your organization's risk tolerance. We recommend running a manual security assessment alongside the automated Nerq score.
How Clawith Compares to Industry Standards
Nerq indexes over 6 million software tools, apps, and packages across dozens of categories. Among agent frameworks, the average Trust Score is 65/100. Clawith's score of 66.4/100 is above the category average of 65/100.
This positions Clawith favorably among agent frameworks. While it outperforms the average, there is still room for improvement in certain trust dimensions.
Industry benchmarks matter because they contextualize a tool's safety profile. A score that looks moderate in isolation may actually represent strong performance within a challenging category — or vice versa. Nerq's category-relative analysis helps teams make informed decisions by showing not just absolute quality, but how a tool ranks against its direct peers.
Trust Score History
Nerq continuously monitors Clawith and recalculates its Trust Score as new data becomes available. Our scoring engine ingests real-time signals from source repositories, vulnerability databases (NVD, OSV.dev), package registries, and community metrics. When a new CVE is published, a major release ships, or maintenance patterns change, Clawith's score is updated within 24 hours.
Historical trust trends reveal whether a tool is improving, stable, or declining over time. A tool that consistently maintains or improves its score demonstrates ongoing commitment to security and quality. Conversely, a downward trend may signal reduced maintenance, growing technical debt, or unresolved vulnerabilities. To track Clawith's score over time, use the Nerq API: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=dataelement/Clawith&include=history
Nerq retains trust score snapshots at regular intervals, enabling trend analysis across weeks and months. Enterprise users can access detailed historical reports showing how each dimension — security, maintenance, documentation, compliance, and community — has evolved independently, providing granular visibility into which aspects of Clawith are strengthening or weakening over time.
Clawith vs Alternatives
In the agent_framework category, Clawith scores 66.4/100. There are higher-scoring alternatives available. For a detailed comparison, see:
- Clawith vs crewAI — Trust Score: 90.9/100
- Clawith vs hashbrown — Trust Score: 75.0/100
- Clawith vs AutoAgents — Trust Score: 80.9/100
Key Takeaways
- Clawith has a Trust Score of 66.4/100 (C) and is not yet Nerq Verified.
- Clawith shows moderate trust signals. Conduct thorough due diligence before deploying to production environments.
- Among agent frameworks, Clawith scores above the category average of 65/100, demonstrating above-average reliability.
- Always verify safety independently — use Nerq's Preflight API for automated, up-to-date trust checks before integration.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Clawith safe to use?
What is Clawith's trust score?
What are safer alternatives to Clawith?
How often is Clawith's safety score updated?
Can I use Clawith in a regulated environment?
Disclaimer: Nerq trust scores are automated assessments based on publicly available signals. They are not endorsements or guarantees. Always conduct your own due diligence.