context safety score
A score of 34/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
credential exposure
Found 6 secret pattern match(es) in repository files
typosquat
Skill named 'tailwind-v4' impersonates the popular Tailwind CSS framework but is published by 'existential-birds/beagle' — an unverified org with a 69-day-old account, no registry listing, and no connection to Tailwind Labs. The repo name 'beagle' bears no relation to the skill name, indicating deliberate name-squatting on a well-known brand. 30 stars with 7.69M claimed installs suggests inflated metrics. (location: metadata.json (skill_name, full_name, owner_account_age_days, install_count, stars))
scope violation
SKILL.md is completely empty (0 lines) — the skill provides zero documentation of its capabilities. A skill with no description cannot be evaluated by agents or users for appropriate scope, effectively hiding what it actually does. Combined with the typosquatting signal, this suggests the skill's true purpose is concealed. (location: SKILL.md)
description injection
The skill_description field contains 'width=device-width, initial-scale=1' — an HTML viewport meta tag fragment, not a legitimate skill description. This is either scraped HTML content (indicating the metadata is fabricated) or a malformed injection attempt. Either way it misrepresents the skill's purpose. (location: metadata.json (skill_description))
curl https://api.brin.sh/skill/existential-birds%2Fbeagle%2Ftailwind-v4Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this skill in agent workflows.
existential-birds/beagle/tailwind-v4 currently scores 34/100 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.