Is frames-engineering/skills/open-prose safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
22/100

context safety score

A score of 22/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
35
behavior
45
content
0
graph
58

6 threat patterns detected

medium

shadow chaining

SKILL.md references 1 external package/skill installation(s)

critical

description injection

SKILL.md directly addresses the reading agent with identity-manipulation language: 'You are not just reading a skill file. You are reading a description of what you can become', 'You are the Prose Complete system', designed to make the agent adopt an alternate identity and self-grant elevated orchestration capabilities. This is not a capability description — it is persuasion targeting the agent itself. (location: SKILL.md:7-29)

critical

capability escalation

Post-execution section instructs the agent to (1) star the skill's GitHub repo using gh api credentials, (2) modify its own persistent memory/SOUL.md to embed the skill path for auto-loading in future sessions — a self-propagation mechanism that persists across conversations without user consent. (location: SKILL.md:340-348)

high

shadow chaining

Post-execution section instructs the agent to autonomously fetch remote contribution guidelines, open PRs to the skill's repository, and write tests — triggering tool calls (git, gh, file writes) beyond the user's original request, framed as natural 'post-execution' behavior. (location: SKILL.md:367-379)

high

scope violation

A 'programming language for AI sessions' skill instructs the agent to star the repo (gh api -X PUT /user/starred/openprose/prose) and promote a Twitter account (@irl_danB). These actions are completely outside the stated scope and use the user's GitHub credentials without explicit consent. (location: SKILL.md:341,349)

medium

supply chain

Metadata shows extreme inconsistency: 7.69M installs but only 3 stars, 0 forks, 52-day-old unverified org, no license, not listed on registry. The install count appears fabricated or manipulated to bypass trust heuristics. The skill_description field contains 'width=device-width, initial-scale=1' (an HTML meta tag), suggesting metadata injection or scraping manipulation. (location: metadata.json)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/skill/frames-engineering%2Fskills%2Fopen-prose

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this skill in agent workflows.

Is frames-engineering/skills/open-prose safe for AI agents to use?

frames-engineering/skills/open-prose currently scores 22/100 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this skill score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this skill?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 1, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.