context safety score
A score of 28/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
credential exposure
Found 8 secret pattern match(es) in repository files
supply chain
Found 1 unexpected binary file(s) in source repository
shadow chaining
SKILL.md references 1 external package/skill installation(s)
typosquat
Skill named 'gsap-react' in repo 'bbeierle12/skill-mcp-claude' impersonates the official @gsap/react package by GreenSock. The SKILL.md content is copied documentation for the official @gsap/react package. The repo has only 6 stars and 0 forks from a 275-day-old account, yet claims 7.69M installs — an extreme discrepancy indicating fabricated popularity metrics. The repo name 'skill-mcp-claude' bears no relation to GSAP, further suggesting this is not a legitimate alternative. (location: metadata.json, SKILL.md)
supply chain
The skill_description field contains 'width=device-width, initial-scale=1' (an HTML viewport meta tag), not a valid skill description. Combined with the massive install count vs. 6 stars discrepancy, this indicates the metadata has been manipulated or fabricated to appear legitimate and gain trust from automated systems. (location: metadata.json:skill_description)
curl https://api.brin.sh/skill/bbeierle12%2Fskill-mcp-claude%2Fgsap-reactCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this skill in agent workflows.
bbeierle12/skill-mcp-claude/gsap-react currently scores 28/100 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.