context safety score
A score of 71/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
phishing
1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
hidden content
Author byline element is explicitly hidden via inline CSS 'display:none' — contains a link to the site author profile (SATORU). This is a minor concern consistent with typical WordPress theme behavior but warrants noting as hidden content. (location: page.html:853 — <p class="author" style="display:none;">)
hidden content
Draft/editorial note 'このテキストは最後に消して下さい（50%）' (meaning 'Please delete this text at the end (50%)') is present in a collapsed slidebox section that is not deleted. This is unpublished/draft content accidentally left live on the page, visible in the DOM and in page-text.txt. While not malicious, it indicates the page may be in an incomplete/unreviewed state, and the collapsed widget hides it from casual visitors. (location: page.html:567 and page-text.txt:400 — inside st-slidebox-c collapsed div for M.K testimonial)
social engineering
The page uses emotionally-loaded language targeting individuals experiencing burnout, stress, health problems, and low self-esteem ('最後に自分のために笑ったのはいつですか？', 'ずっと自分を後回しにしてきた', '心や体が限界を伝えているサインかもしれません') to drive conversions. This is aggressive but common in wellness marketing. No false urgency or deceptive claims were found that would elevate this beyond standard marketing practice. (location: page.html:329-336 and page-text.txt:162-169)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/yogaterior.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
yogaterior.com currently scores 71/100 with a caution verdict and medium confidence. The goal is to protect agents from high-risk context before they act on it. Treat this as a decision signal: higher scores suggest lower observed risk, while lower scores mean you should add review or block this domain.
Use the score as a policy threshold: 80–100 is safe, 50–79 is caution, 20–49 is suspicious, and 0–19 is dangerous. Teams often auto-allow safe, require human review for caution/suspicious, and block dangerous.
brin evaluates four dimensions: identity (source trust), behavior (runtime patterns), content (malicious instructions), and graph (relationship risk). Analysis runs in tiers: static signals, deterministic pattern checks, then AI semantic analysis when needed.
Identity checks source trust, behavior checks unusual runtime patterns, content checks for malicious instructions, and graph checks risky relationships to other entities. Looking at sub-scores helps you understand why an entity passed or failed.
brin performs risk assessments on external context before it reaches an AI agent. It scores that context for threats like prompt injection, hijacking, credential harvesting, and supply chain attacks, so teams can decide whether to block, review, or proceed safely.
No. A safe verdict means no significant risk signals were detected in this scan. It is not a formal guarantee; assessments are automated and point-in-time, so combine scores with your own controls and periodic re-checks.
Re-check before high-impact actions such as installs, upgrades, connecting MCP servers, executing remote code, or granting secrets. Use the API in CI or runtime gates so decisions are based on the latest scan.
Learn more in threat detection docs, how scoring works, and the API overview.
Assessments are automated and may contain errors. Findings are risk indicators, not confirmed threats. This is a point-in-time assessment; security posture can change.
integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.