Spec Driven Development
MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.
作者提供的说明(英文原文)
Deterministic verification for AI coding agents: catches invented APIs and wrong calls.
这三项永远不会合并成一个分数:意见、测量和人气是不同的东西。
我们还没有为它写通俗的介绍。下面是我们从注册中心读取到的事实。
选择你使用的 AI 应用,然后复制设置。
你需要
你用的是哪个应用?
在上方选择你的应用。我们会记住它,下次按钮会显示“安装到 …”。
打开 Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config,把下面的内容粘贴到 claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"honestcode": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"honestcode"
]
}
}
}在终端中运行这条命令
claude mcp add honestcode -- uvx honestcode粘贴到项目中的 .cursor/mcp.json,或 ~/.cursor/mcp.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"honestcode": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"honestcode"
]
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
粘贴到项目中的 .vscode/mcp.json
{
"servers": {
"honestcode": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"honestcode"
]
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
这个服务器在你的电脑上运行,而 ChatGPT 只能连接互联网上的服务器。请选择其他应用。
你的选择通过 Cookie 保存在这台设备上,无需账户。
这些设置是根据作者在注册中心的条目生成的。如果 README 的写法不同,请以 README 为准。
它在你的电脑上运行;安装后,工具列表会显示在你的 AI 应用中。
我们检查的是任何人都能看到的信息;我们没有阅读代码。不适用的检查项不计入总数。 · 检查于 2026年11月6日
注册名称已通过 GitHub 账户 Fengrru 验证,该账户拥有此仓库
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
它在你的电脑上运行,没有互联网端点
在你的电脑上运行,改用本地设置
它在你的电脑上运行;我们只能读取互联网端点的工具列表
与注册中心里这个分类中所有活跃的服务器比较。只有当发布者拥有该仓库时,星标数才计入。
它在 1 项适用的基础检查中通过了 1 项。我们没有阅读代码。在添加密钥或令牌之前,请先看看这个服务器要求哪些权限,并使用只具备所需权限的密钥。
注册中心没有列出必需的密钥,不过有些服务器会在首次使用时要求你登录。
它在你的电脑上运行。你的 AI 应用会在需要时启动它,数据不会经过作者的服务器(除非它自己调用在线服务)。
GitHub 仓库最后更新于–,最新版本(0.5.1)于12天前进入注册中心。
支持 MCP 的应用,例如 Claude Desktop、Claude Code、Cursor 和 VS Code。你的电脑上还需要有 Python (uv)。
同一分类中有:Spec Driven Development, Remote Desktop Commander, dotnet-mcp
同一分类中其他作者的服务器,按星标数排序。
如何看卡片:★ GitHub 星标i三大支柱:评价 · 检查 · 使用情况i更新 = 最新版本发布到注册中心的时间i
MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.
Remote Desktop Commander: use files, terminal and processes on your own computers from any AI app.
MCP server for .NET symbols, XAML, source generators, and restricted workspace edit
按原文从作者的仓库复制。PopNx MCP 没有审查或背书其内容。HTML、图片和脚本已被移除。链接会离开本站。
The deterministic verification layer for AI coding agents.
Catch invented APIs, undefined symbols, wrong calls, and other code hallucinations before your agent moves on.
AI coding agents hallucinate. They invent function names, fabricate library APIs, and call methods that do not exist.
HonestCode is the layer that checks what the agent just wrote against the repository it is supposed to be grounded in.
Agent
↓ writes code ↓ HonestCode ↓ evidence ↓ Agent fixes ↓ verified code
No LLM calls. No network. Pure AST + symbol resolution.
The agent was asked to *"add authentication using the existing UserClient."* It generated:
client.refresh_token()
The real project only has:
class UserClient:
def refresh(self): ... def refresh_access_token(self): ...
HonestCode catches it deterministically:
✗ verification failed — 1 issue in app/login_broken.py
[invented_api] app/login_broken.py:9 UserClient.refresh_token() does not exist. did you mean: refresh_access_token()? available methods:
Run it yourself:
cd demos/invented-api
python run.py
HonestCode is not a replacement — it is a verification layer that answers a specific question: *did the agent's code actually come from this repository?*
| Error | Ruff | Pyright | HonestCode |
|---|---|---|---|
| Syntax error | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Type mismatch | — | ✓ | structural only |
| Undefined symbol | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Invented API | partial | partial | core |
| Wrong method call | — | partial | core |
| Agent-generated API mismatch | — | — | core |
The key difference is repository grounding. Ruff checks the file. Pyright types the call. HonestCode checks whether the call resolves to a real symbol that exists in the codebase the agent is editing. (HonestCode does not do full type inference — its structural checks catch mismatched arities, iterating None, and calling constants, not general type errors.)
What a call site is checked against depends on how the receiver's type is known: an annotation (client: UserClient), a constructor assignment (client = UserClient()), self/cls, and an inline constructor (UserClient().refresh()) are all resolved. A receiver produced by a factory function (make_client().refresh()) is not judged — function signatures carry no return type in the surface model, and guessing there would trade a missed finding for a false one.
One line — no clone, no virtualenv:
claude mcp add honestcode -- uvx honestcode-mcp
uvx fetches the server into an isolated environment on first use; install uv first if you do not have it. From a checkout (to hack on the code, or if you prefer not to use uv):
git clone https://github.com/Fengrru/honestcode
cd honestcode pip install -e . claude mcp add honestcode -- honestcode-mcp
Cursor / VS Code / Claude Desktop: the honestcode install command probes those clients' config files and registers the server for you:
honestcode install # all detected clients
honestcode install --client cursor --dry-run # preview without writing
Requires Python >= 3.10. 100% local.
# Add HonestCode as an MCP server
claude mcp add honestcode -- honestcode-mcp
Or add it manually to your Claude Code config (~/.claude.json on macOS/Linux, %USERPROFILE%\.claude.json on Windows):
{
"mcpServers": { "honestcode": { "command": "honestcode-mcp", "args": [] } } }
Restart Claude Code. You now have two verification tools available:
scan_file(path) — legacy tool, returns issues plus the new evidence shape.verify_file(path) — agent-facing tool, returns status, findings with evidence, and a human-readable text summary.Try prompting Claude:
Add a login endpoint using the existing UserClient, then run verify_file on the
file you just wrote and fix anything it reports.
HonestCode auto-discovers the project root from the file path, indexes the codebase, and returns grounded evidence.
MCP tools only run when the model chooses to call them. To make verification unconditional, wire the hook in scripts/claude_hook.py into Claude Code's PostToolUse event — every .py file the agent writes is verified, and a finding blocks the edit with the evidence fed straight back into the conversation:
{
"hooks": { "PostToolUse": [ { "matcher": "Write|Edit", "hooks": [ { "type": "command", "command": "python /absolute/path/to/honestcode/scripts/claude_hook.py" } ] } ] } }
Put that in ~/.claude/settings.json (all projects) or .claude/settings.json (one project). The hook never blocks on its own failures: unreadable input, non-Python files, and verification crashes all exit silently, so it can never turn into a wall that blocks every edit.
# auth/client.py
class UserClient: def refresh_access_token(self): ...
from auth.client import UserClient
def login(client: UserClient): client.refresh_token() # invented API
>>> from honestcode.mcp.tools import verify_file
>> verify_file("auth/login.py")
{ "status": "fail", "file": "auth/login.py", "findings": [ { "line": 7, "kind": "invented_api", "symbol": "refresh_token", "owner": "UserClient", "message": "UserClient.refresh_token() does not exist.", "evidence": { "available_methods": ["refresh", "refresh_access_token"], "did_you_mean": "refresh_access_token" }, "confidence": "deterministic", "action": "revise" } ], "text": "✗ verification failed — 1 issue in auth/login.py\n ..." }
verify_file returns evidence an agent can act on directly, not just an error message:
{
"status": "fail", "file": "auth/client.py", "line": 42, "kind": "invented_api", "symbol": "refresh_token", "owner": "UserClient", "message": "UserClient.refresh_token() does not exist.", "evidence": { "available_methods": ["refresh", "refresh_access_token"] }, "confidence": "deterministic", "action": "revise" }
ast module.__getattr__.kind, owner, evidence, confidence, and action.The loop is deterministic and auditable.
The verifier stays silent wherever it cannot *prove* absence — that is the feature, but it means detection has known boundaries:
@dataclass) may add or rewrite members, so invented method calls on such classes are not reported. Undecorated classes are fully checked.from typing import TypeVarr (an invented *import*) is caught, but os.path.joinn() (an invented *call* on a real module) is not — third-party and project members are the covered surface.make_client().refresh() is skipped; annotations, constructor assignments, self/cls, and inline constructors (UserClient().refresh()) are resolved.scan_file / verify_file resolve the project root per file (including monorepo sub-projects); find_dead_code, explore_call_graph, search_code and friends operate on the project most recently passed to index_project.By default scan_file and verify_file are exposed. Set HONESTCODE_TOOLS=all to enable the full set, including:
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
scan_file | Scan a file for invented APIs, undefined calls, and wrong arities. |
verify_file | Return the agent-facing structured evidence protocol. |
index_project | Build or reuse the project symbol index. |
load_project_deps | Load dependency APIs from requirements.txt / pyproject.toml. |
check_symbol | Verify a symbol is defined. |
check_api | Verify a library API call exists. |
validate_types | Structural type checks. |
Dependency manifests (requirements.txt, pyproject.toml) are declared automatically on the first scan, so imports from a dependency that is not installed in the MCP server's interpreter are trusted rather than reported as invented. Set HONESTCODE_AUTO_DEPS=0 to disable that.
See the old tool reference below for the complete list.
verify_file checks code before it runs. guards/ covers what happens after: an agent that retries a tool call can charge a card twice, and no durable execution engine prevents it — Temporal and Restate both guarantee deterministic replay of *orchestration* and leave exactly-once external effects to the application.
from honestcode.guards import EffectStore, SideEffectGuard, durable_scope
guard = SideEffectGuard(session_id="run-42", store_path=".agent/effects.db")
outcome = guard.run( "charge", target="cus_123", payload={"cents": 4200}, execute=lambda: charge_card("cus_123", 4200), approve_irreversible=True, scope=durable_scope("order-4711", "charge", "cus_123"), )
outcome.executed # False on the retry — a receipt, not a second charge outcome.effect_id # stable across a restart, because the key is on disk
The interesting part is what scope does. Pass it and the effect's identity comes from the scope rather than the session — which is the difference between a retry being recognised and a customer being charged twice, because a restart *is* a new session id. Pass nothing and the guard stays session-scoped.
Refusing is the default direction: an unrecognised action is treated as irreversible rather than idempotent, and irreversible effects need explicit approval. A run that dies between the call and the record leaves the effect executing, and the next attempt reports the outcome as unknown instead of guessing — which is what stops the retry. Scoped effects are recovered with guard.recover(scope=durable_scope(...)), and guard.effects(scope=...) / guard.summary(scope=...) report them; the records live under a namespace d
只显示了开头部分;其余内容请在仓库中阅读