Is sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/senior-fullstack safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
46/100

context safety score

A score of 46/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
95
behavior
64
content
0
graph
54

7 threat patterns detected

high

credential exposure

Found 84 secret pattern match(es) in repository files

low

supply chain

Found 12 install-script pattern(s) in documentation (likely install instructions, not executable)

low

supply chain

Found 12 remote script pattern(s) in documentation (likely install instructions, not executable)

medium

supply chain

Found 4 unexpected binary file(s) in source repository

medium

shadow chaining

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

high

scope violation

SKILL.md documents three Python scripts (fullstack_scaffolder.py, project_scaffolder.py, code_quality_analyzer.py) and three reference docs, but NONE of these files exist in the repository. The skill is an empty shell with no actual implementation despite claiming comprehensive fullstack development capabilities. This is deceptive — it promises capabilities it cannot deliver, which is characteristic of placeholder/squatter packages. (location: SKILL.md:19-75 and missing scripts/ and references/ directories)

medium

typosquat

The repo name 'antigravity-awesome-skills' uses the well-known 'awesome-' naming convention to suggest it is a curated collection, and the skill_description field in metadata.json contains 'width=device-width, initial-scale=1' (an HTML viewport meta tag value, not a real description), indicating the metadata was either scraped from a webpage or deliberately malformed. Combined with a 510-day-old personal account (sickn33), no registry listing, no org verification, and no actual code — despite claiming 17K stars and 7.69M installs — this has strong characteristics of a fake/squatter package designed to attract installs through inflated metrics and keyword stuffing. (location: metadata.json:skill_description field, repository name, SKILL.md tech stack listing)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/skill/sickn33%2Fantigravity-awesome-skills%2Fsenior-fullstack

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/senior-fullstack safe for AI agents to use?

sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/senior-fullstack currently scores 46/100 with a suspicious 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 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.