EN中
Explore / Dependency Upgrade Agent
Agent TemplateInfo checkedmedium risk

Dependency Upgrade Agent

Plan dependency upgrades, run checks, and explain compatibility risks.

Directory
Preview · 94

Preview: the curated catalog plus the latest auto-checked entries. 47 newly auto-checked

47/100
Recommended
Indicative — limited evidence
50/100
Benchmark
Indicative — limited evidence
Needs human reviewInfo checked · Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
Why
Recommendation 47/100, fits Coding, setup is easy.
Best for
Developers using Codex for coding workflows.
Not for
Users expecting a fully managed marketplace install flow.
Boundary
Checked up to "Info checked"; deeper install and interface testing isn't covered yet — confirm in your own environment.
Remaining risk
Risk appears manageable for personal developer workflows when configured narrowly.
Next step
Review tokens, write access, and network scope in a sandbox before team adoption.
Check before you adopt
This capability uses higher-risk permissions (tokens, write access, shell, and the like). Try it in an isolated environment and confirm what it actually does before using it for real work.

What it is good for

Plan dependency upgrades, run checks, and explain compatibility risks. AgentMaps treats this as a agent template candidate and scores it with a capped benchmark score plus a separate recommendation score that includes trust, platform fit, setup preference, and risk preference.

Use cases

  • - Review code changes
  • - Inspect repository context
  • - Generate implementation notes
  • - Run repeatable task flows
  • - Coordinate tool calls

Best for

  • - Developers using Codex for coding workflows.
  • - Teams that want visible setup, verification, and risk evidence before adoption.

Not for

  • - Users expecting a fully managed marketplace install flow.
  • - Users who need enterprise SSO controls.

Limitations

  • - Scenario-level L5-L7 benchmark testing is not part of the current MVP record.
How it runsAgentic workflow

How to use it & what to watch

AI may help filter, explain, and draft a trial plan, but must not perform write, shell, external side effects, or production publishing before review.

What you'll see

  • Start from your task and the platform you use
  • Review its setup, source, and permission scope
  • Try it first in an isolated or low-permission environment
  • For high-risk actions, wait for a review before continuing

Where you can step in

  • Adjust task/platform filters
  • Add to compare
  • Open the source to check
  • Stop a high-risk adoption
  • Add what you've learned

Actions needing approval

  • Local directory scope approval
  • Approval before writes or state mutation
  • Sandbox approval before shell execution

If something goes wrong

  • When evidence is thin, compare alternatives before any automated adoption.

How to judge a trial

  • Can you find a task-fit candidate within two minutes
  • Can it explain why it's recommended and where it doesn't fit
  • Can you see the token, write, shell, network, or local-file risks
  • Can you tell 'checked the docs' apart from 'actually verified in a run'
  • If a trial fails, is there a fallback or a way to take over manually

Verification evidence

Below is the result of each check — passed, partial, skipped, or not yet tested. It shows how far checking has gone, not that the capability is cleared for production use.

Info checked

Source, docs, license, or package metadata exists.

passed
Risk reviewed

Static review assigns permission and risk boundaries.

skipped
Install-verified

Install path can be checked, but not necessarily in your environment.

skipped
Interface-verified

Interface or entrypoint parsed; not a production safety approval.

skipped
  • Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
  • Source and documentation fields are present.
  • Static audit pending.
  • Install verification pending.
  • Interface parsing pending.
  • Benchmark score capped at 50 by L1 verification.

Evaluation summary

Quick estimate
Needs reviewStatic reviewMisfire risk: Medium

Risk findings

  • - Repo Write Access
  • - Shell Access

Verified evidence

  • - Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
  • - Source and documentation fields are present.
  • - Static audit pending.
  • - Install verification pending.

Score breakdown

Safety & permissions59
How well it works62
Actively maintained80
Setup & integration83
Interface quality71
Follows standards68
Task fit78
Works across platforms79

Why it scores well

  • - Clear task fit for the selected scenario.
  • - Ready for metadata review.
  • - Focused platform fit.

Watch outs

  • - Scenario testing is still pending.
  • - Production adoption still needs local validation.

Alternatives

GitHub MCP Server
MCP Server · Coding, Automation
66/100
Rec

Connect agents to GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, and code search.

Interface-verifiedhigh riskSelf-hosted
View details →
Compare Dependency Upgrade Agent vs GitHub MCP Server
Playwright MCP
MCP Server · Browser, Automation
84/100
Rec

Expose browser automation primitives through MCP for web navigation and testing.

Interface-verifiedmedium riskSelf-hosted
View details →
Compare Dependency Upgrade Agent vs Playwright MCP
Context7 MCP
MCP Server · Coding, Research
87/100
Rec

Fetch current library documentation and examples directly into coding agents.

Interface-verifiedlow riskCursor
View details →
Compare Dependency Upgrade Agent vs Context7 MCP