io.github.eoylab/jftc-actions

MCPcommunity
v0.1.0io.github.eoylabUnknownUpdated 28d agoGitHub

Japan FTC: 361 antitrust orders and subcontract-act recommendations, with source URLs.

Automatically indexed from public sources. Not yet verified by the developer on Forge.Claim this listing →
28d agoLast update
Package
Authorio.github.eoylab
LicenseUnknown
Version0.1.0
Sourcemcp-registry
GitHubeoylab/jftc-actions
SBOMCycloneDX 1.6 ↓
Trust Status
F
10/100Untrusted
✓Listed in Forge index+10/10
—Publisher identity verified+0/30
→ Publisher: run `forge publish` from the repo to claim ownership
—Domain verification+0/10
→ Not currently available for this listing type — the domain-verification check only runs for npm-backed packages today, so this row cannot be earned here yet regardless of what's hosted at the domain.
—Prompt-injection scan · not run+0/30
→ Not yet scanned — the repository archive is scanned on the next cron run
—Obfuscation / exfil scan · not run+0/20
→ Not yet scanned — the repository archive is scanned on the next cron run
Paste into Claude Code, Cursor, or any AI assistant to fix all gaps
StatusCommunity-indexed
PublisherUnverified
SignatureUnsigned
Domain—
Provenance—
DependenciesNot audited
Tool surface—
Security scanNot runHow well does this scan work?
EvalsNone
IndexedSep 8, 2026

Verification confirms publisher identity (repo ownership), not code safety. The security scan covers known CVEs and suspicious install scripts.

Tools

Not scanned yet

Forge has no scan on record for this entry, so it holds no observation of its tool surface. That is an absence of evidence, not evidence that it exposes no tools.

About

Japan FTC: 361 antitrust orders and subcontract-act recommendations, with source URLs.

Keywords
mcp
Alternatives
Comparing tool surfaces…

No dependency coverage

This entry publishes no npm package, so Forge has no dependency tree for it. That is a gap in coverage — not a statement that it has no dependencies.