context safety score
A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
supply chain
Found 1 install-script pattern(s) in documentation (likely install instructions, not executable)
supply chain
Found 1 remote script pattern(s) in documentation (likely install instructions, not executable)
scope violation
skill_description in metadata.json is 'width=device-width, initial-scale=1' — an HTML viewport meta tag, not a legitimate skill description. This indicates the skill metadata was scraped from HTML or deliberately crafted with nonsensical content. Combined with an empty SKILL.md, this skill has no honest declaration of its purpose, making it impossible for an agent to give informed consent to its capabilities. (location: metadata.json:skill_description)
supply chain
Highly suspicious trust signals: 20-day-old unverified org account, no license, not listed on registry, 1 contributor, empty SKILL.md — yet claims 7.69M installs. The install count is wildly inconsistent with 183 stars and the account's age, suggesting fabricated popularity metrics designed to pass automated trust checks. (location: metadata.json (install_count, owner_account_age_days, org_verified, listed_on_registry))
curl https://api.brin.sh/skill/ai-native-camp%2Fcamp-1%2Fday6-prd-submitCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this skill in agent workflows.
ai-native-camp/camp-1/day6-prd-submit currently scores 36/100 with a suspicious verdict and low 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 skill.
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.