RRepoGEO

REPOGEO REPORT · LITE

centerforaisafety/HarmBench

Default branch main · commit 8e1604d1 · scanned 6/14/2026, 1:47:22 PM

GitHub: 981 stars · 142 forks

AI VISIBILITY SCORE
35 /100
Critical
Category recall
0 / 2
Not recommended in any query
Rule findings
1 pass · 1 warn · 0 fail
Objective metadata checks
AI knows your name
3 / 3
Direct prompts that named your repo
HOW TO READ THIS REPORT

Action plan is what to do next — copy-pasteable changes prioritized by impact. Category visibility is the real GEO test: when a user asks an AI a brand-free question that should surface centerforaisafety/HarmBench, does the AI actually recommend you — or your competitors? Objective checks verify the metadata signals AI engines weight first. Self-mention check detects whether AI even knows you exist by name.

Action plan — copy-paste fixes

3 prioritized changes generated by gemini-2.5-flash. Mark items done after you ship the fix.

OVERALL DIRECTION
  • hightopics#1
    Add relevant topics to the repository

    Why:

    COPY-PASTE FIX
    llm-safety, adversarial-testing, red-teaming, llm-evaluation, machine-learning-security, ai-safety, benchmark, robustness
  • mediumreadme#2
    Reinforce core purpose in README's introductory paragraph

    Why:

    CURRENT
    A fast, scalable, and open-source framework for evaluating automated red teaming methods and LLM attacks/defenses
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    HarmBench is a fast, scalable, and open-source **benchmark suite** for **systematically evaluating the safety and adversarial robustness of large language models (LLMs)** against automated red teaming methods and various LLM attacks/defenses.
  • mediumcomparison#3
    Add a 'Comparison to Alternatives' section in the README

    Why:

    COPY-PASTE FIX
    Add a new section titled 'Comparison to Alternatives' or 'Why HarmBench?' in the README, outlining how HarmBench differentiates itself from tools like Giskard, Garak, LLM Guard, and other LLM evaluation or adversarial testing frameworks by focusing on standardized, comprehensive, and extensible benchmarking for safety and robustness.

Category GEO backends resolved for this scan: google/gemini-2.5-flash, deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash

Category visibility — the real GEO test

Brand-free queries asked to google/gemini-2.5-flash. Did AI recommend you, or someone else?

Same questions for every model — switch tabs to compare answers and rankings.

Recall
0 / 2
0% of queries surface centerforaisafety/HarmBench
Avg rank
Lower is better. #1 = top recommendation.
Share of voice
0%
Of all named tools, what % are you?
Top rival
Giskard
Recommended in 1 of 2 queries
COMPETITOR LEADERBOARD
  1. Giskard · recommended 1×
  2. Microsoft Guidance · recommended 1×
  3. LangChain · recommended 1×
  4. OpenAI Evals · recommended 1×
  5. Hugging Face Evaluate library · recommended 1×
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    How can I systematically evaluate the safety and robustness of my large language models?
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. Giskard
    2. Microsoft Guidance
    3. LangChain
    4. OpenAI Evals
    5. Hugging Face Evaluate library
    6. Adversarial Robustness Toolbox (ART)

    AI recommended 6 alternatives but never named centerforaisafety/HarmBench. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    What frameworks exist for automated adversarial testing of LLMs to find vulnerabilities?
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. Garak
    2. LLM Guard
    3. Adversarial GLUE (AdvGLUE)
    4. OpenAttack
    5. Robustness Gym
    6. Red Teaming with Azure AI Content Safety
    7. PromptInject

    AI recommended 7 alternatives but never named centerforaisafety/HarmBench. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer

Objective checks

Rule-based audits of metadata signals AI engines weight most.

  • Metadata completeness
    warn

    Suggestion:

  • README presence
    pass

Self-mention check

Does AI even know your repo exists when asked about it directly?

  • Compared to common alternatives in this category, what is the core differentiator of centerforaisafety/HarmBench?
    pass
    AI named centerforaisafety/HarmBench explicitly

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • If a team adopts centerforaisafety/HarmBench in production, what risks or prerequisites should they evaluate first?
    pass
    AI named centerforaisafety/HarmBench explicitly

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • In one sentence, what problem does the repo centerforaisafety/HarmBench solve, and who is the primary audience?
    pass
    AI named centerforaisafety/HarmBench explicitly

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

Embed your GEO score

Drop this badge into the README of centerforaisafety/HarmBench. It auto-updates whenever the report is rescanned and links back to the latest report — easy public proof that you care about AI discoverability.

RepoGEO badge previewLive preview
MARKDOWN (README)
[![RepoGEO](https://repogeo.com/badge/centerforaisafety/HarmBench.svg)](https://repogeo.com/en/r/centerforaisafety/HarmBench)
HTML
<a href="https://repogeo.com/en/r/centerforaisafety/HarmBench"><img src="https://repogeo.com/badge/centerforaisafety/HarmBench.svg" alt="RepoGEO" /></a>
Pro

Subscribe to Pro for deep diagnoses

centerforaisafety/HarmBench — Lite scans stay free; this card itemizes Pro deep limits vs Lite.

  • Deep reports10 / month
  • Brand-free category queries5 vs 2 in Lite
  • Prioritized action items8 vs 3 in Lite