education & learning·run 157 · Jun 2026

Skillvouch

An education-specific agent-tool registry that versions vendor claims, sandbox observations, data-access disclosures, signed attestations, school references, incidents, revocations, and procurement review.

Genesis score0.00/10

Make Skillvouch real.0/500

500 more votes and Skillvouch is authorized for build.

0%500 to authorize

Backing is the vote. When an idea crosses 500, we pull it into the build pipeline and ship it for real — the votes decide what gets built next, not an editor.

The case

Generic trust registries, credential validation, install-time attestations, an official MCP registry, and a FERPA-query server confirm active infrastructure, while no education-specific peer-vouch and student-safety product was found. Skillvouch must not call a tool safe because a sandbox passed or peers vouched. Vendor claim, submitted artifact, source hash, sandbox observation, data-flow disclosure, legal or security review, school reference, signed attestation, procurement decision, deployment, incident, revocation, remediation, and student outcome remain separate.

Who pays — and why

A school district technology, privacy, security, procurement, curriculum, digital-learning, or legal leader evaluating MCP servers or agent tools for student or educator workflows. Exact institution type, student population, tool count, data flows, approval process, budget, and current registry remain incomplete.

Market signalNo validated product price or directly comparable education-specific registry price was present. Confirmed primitives were open or generic rather than commercial equivalents.Observed market reference, not fixed product pricing

What it unlocks

A tool identity record for publisher, namespace, domain, source, package, version, signing keys, hashes, requested permissions, tools, network destinations, data types, subprocessors, retention, training use, age scope, support, and change history

A reproducible sandbox assessment that records environment, fixtures, network and file behavior, permission use, tool calls, outputs, findings, limitations, test version, reviewer, and no-test or inconclusive states

Separate vendor self-assertion, machine observation, independent review, school reference, signed attestation, revocation, incident, remediation, procurement assessment, local approval, deployment, monitoring, and student outcome

Peer references with verified institution and reviewer identity, relationship and compensation disclosure, deployment scope, date, version, evidence, conflicts, update, challenge, and anti-gaming controls

How Genesis scored it

0.00across seven criteria

Asymmetric leverage

Identity, disclosures, sandbox tests, attestations, references, incidents, and revocation scale through shared infrastructure, while expert review remains material.

Productive tension

Peer evidence and signed tests can improve procurement while encouraging schools to outsource local duty and accept a score as permanent safety.

Why nobody did it

Generic registries and attestations exist; no newly broken technical barrier is established.

Why it scored well

Active generic registries, credential and attestation primitives, a clear education governance need, and reusable testing and disclosure schemas support a timely trust layer.

What's holding it back

The stored score is zero. The original interface was unverified, the buyer and price are broad, no education product found is not proof of demand, sandbox tests have limited coverage, peer reputation is gameable, legal applicability varies, and a signed verdict can create dangerous procurement complacency.

Signals detected3 sources crossed

SignalOpen registry review

SignalOfficial registry documentation review

SignalGenesis competitive review

Direction briefskillvouch.md

skillvouch.md

Want this pointed at your vertical?Point Genesis at your own market and constraints — it invents adjacent, fork-ready ideas, private to you before they hit the public feed.

Discussion

No comments yet — be the first to weigh in.