Head to head
Human Standards vs Kiln
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
Read-only Human Standards guidance for accessible, usable interface design.
Full listing
No reviews yet
Kiln MCP server for agents: design, slice, print, monitor, and recover physical objects safely.
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours Human Standards (92/100 against 72). Kiln has noticeably more public adoption.
| Human Standards | Kiln | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A92/100 | B72/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Established |
| GitHub stars | 3 | 67 |
| Downloads / week | 27 | 169 |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | No | No |
| Tools | 5 | 100 |
| Write actions | — | 8 |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | NOASSERTION | AGPL-3.0 |
| Last release | 2026-09-03 | 2026-09-22 |
| Category | Media | Media |