Is R1 1776 Safe?

R1 1776 — Nerq Trust Score 60.0/100 (C grade). Score based on 1 independent trust signals.

R1 1776 is a software tool with a Nerq Trust Score of 60.0/100 (C), based on 3 independent data dimensions. Data sourced from multiple public sources including package registries, GitHub, NVD, OSV.dev, and OpenSSF Scorecard. Last updated: n/a. Machine-readable data (JSON).

Is R1 1776 safe?

Trust Score Breakdown — R1 1776 has a Nerq Trust Score of 60.0/100 (C). Measured across 1 independent trust signal.

Security Analysis → R1 1776 Privacy Report →

What is R1 1776's trust score?

R1 1776 has a Nerq Trust Score of 60.0/100, earning a C grade. This score is based on 1 independently measured dimensions including security, maintenance, and community adoption.

Compliance
87

What are the key security findings for R1 1776?

R1 1776's strongest signal is compliance at 87/100. No known vulnerabilities have been detected.

⚠Compliance: 87/100 — covers 45 of 52 jurisdictions

What is R1 1776 and who maintains it?

Authorperplexity-ai
CategoryOther
Stars2,333
Sourcehttps://huggingface.co/perplexity-ai/r1-1776
Protocolshuggingface_hub

Regulatory Compliance

EU AI Act Risk ClassNot assessed
Compliance Score87/100
JurisdictionsAssessed across 52 jurisdictions

Popular Alternatives in other

Developer-Y/cs-video-courses
59.9/100 · D
github
binhnguyennus/awesome-scalability
59.4/100 · D
github
obra/superpowers
62.4/100 · C
github
ultralytics/yolov5
61.4/100 · C
github
deepfakes/faceswap
56.9/100 · D
github

What Is R1 1776?

R1 1776 is a software tool in the other category with 2,333 GitHub stars. Nerq Trust Score: 60/100 (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 R1 1776's Safety

Nerq's Trust Score is calculated from 13+ independent signals aggregated into five dimensions. Here is how R1 1776 performs in each:

The overall Trust Score of 60.0/100 (C) is the weighted combination of these measured signals. It is a measurement, not a pass/fail or suitability judgment — weigh the individual signals against your own requirements.

Who Typically Evaluates R1 1776?

R1 1776 is commonly evaluated by:

How to read the signals: R1 1776's measured signals (the trust signals above) are shown above. These are measurements, not a suitability judgment — weigh each signal against the requirements of your own use case and risk tolerance.

How to Verify R1 1776's Safety Yourself

While Nerq provides automated trust analysis, we recommend these additional steps before adopting any software tool:

  1. Check the source code — Review the repository security policy, open issues, and recent commits for signs of active maintenance.
  2. Scan dependencies — Use tools like npm audit, pip-audit, or snyk to check for known vulnerabilities in R1 1776's dependency tree.
  3. Review permissions — Understand what access R1 1776 requires. Software tools should follow the principle of least privilege.
  4. Test in isolation — Run R1 1776 in a sandboxed environment before granting access to production data or systems.
  5. Monitor continuously — Use Nerq's API to set up automated trust checks: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=r1-1776
  6. Review the license — Confirm that R1 1776'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.
  7. 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 R1 1776

When evaluating whether R1 1776 is safe, consider these category-specific risks:

Data handling

Understand how R1 1776 processes, stores, and transmits your data. Review the tool's privacy policy and data retention practices, especially for sensitive or proprietary information.

Dependency security

Check R1 1776's dependency tree for known vulnerabilities. Tools with outdated or unmaintained dependencies pose a higher security risk.

Update frequency

Regularly check for updates to R1 1776. Security patches and bug fixes are only effective if you're running the latest version.

Third-party integrations

If R1 1776 connects to external APIs or services, each integration point is a potential attack surface. Audit all third-party connections, verify that data shared with external services is minimized, and ensure that integration credentials are rotated regularly.

License and IP compliance

Verify that R1 1776's license is compatible with your intended use case. Some AI tools have restrictive licenses that limit commercial use, redistribution, or derivative works. Using R1 1776 in violation of its license can expose your organization to legal liability.

Best Practices for Using R1 1776 Safely

Whether you're an individual developer or an enterprise team, these practices will help you get the most from R1 1776 while minimizing risk:

Conduct regular audits

Periodically review how R1 1776 is used in your workflow. Check for unexpected behavior, permissions drift, and compliance with your security policies.

Keep dependencies updated

Ensure R1 1776 and all its dependencies are running the latest stable versions to benefit from security patches.

Follow least privilege

Grant R1 1776 only the minimum permissions it needs to function. Avoid granting admin or root access.

Monitor for security advisories

Subscribe to R1 1776's security advisories and vulnerability disclosures. Use Nerq's API to get automated trust score updates.

Document usage policies

Create and maintain a clear policy for how R1 1776 is used within your organization, including data handling guidelines and acceptable use cases.

Situations That Warrant Independent Review of R1 1776

Nerq's signals are one input. In the following situations, evaluate R1 1776's measured signals against your own requirements before making a decision:

For each situation, compare R1 1776's measured trust score of 60.0/100 and its individual signals against your organization's own criteria. Nerq does not assert whether R1 1776 is suitable for any particular use.

How R1 1776 Compares to Industry Standards

Nerq indexes over 6 million software tools, apps, and packages across dozens of categories. Among other tools, the average Trust Score is 62/100. R1 1776's score of 60.0/100 is near the category average of 62/100.

This places R1 1776 in line with the typical other tool tool. It meets baseline expectations but does not distinguish itself from peers on trust metrics.

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 R1 1776 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, R1 1776'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 R1 1776's score over time, use the Nerq API: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=r1-1776&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 R1 1776 are strengthening or weakening over time.

R1 1776 vs Alternatives

In the other category, R1 1776 scores 60.0/100. There are higher-scoring alternatives available. For a detailed comparison, see:

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Is R1 1776 Safe?
r1-1776 with a Nerq Trust Score of 60.0/100 (C). Strongest signal: compliance (87/100). Score based on multiple trust dimensions.
What is R1 1776's trust score?
r1-1776: 60.0/100 (C). Score based on multiple trust dimensions. Compliance: 87/100. Scores update as new data becomes available. API: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=r1-1776
What are safer alternatives to R1 1776?
In the Other category, higher-rated alternatives include Developer-Y/cs-video-courses (60/100), binhnguyennus/awesome-scalability (59/100), obra/superpowers (62/100). r1-1776 scores 60.0/100.
How often is R1 1776's safety score updated?
Nerq recomputes R1 1776's trust score as new data becomes available. Current: 60.0/100 (C). API: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=r1-1776
Can I use R1 1776 in a regulated environment?
R1 1776: 60.0/100 (C). Compliance: 45 of 52 jurisdictions. Evaluate against your own regulatory requirements.
API: /v1/preflight Trust Badge API Docs

See Also

Disclaimer: Nerq trust scores are automated measurements based on publicly available signals. They are not endorsements, verdicts, or guarantees of suitability. Always evaluate the signals against your own requirements.

We use cookies for analytics and caching. Privacy