context safety score
A score of 31/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
credential exposure
Found 14 secret pattern match(es) in repository files
supply chain
Found 8 install-script pattern(s) in documentation (likely install instructions, not executable)
supply chain
Found 8 remote script pattern(s) in documentation (likely install instructions, not executable)
supply chain
Found 5 unexpected binary file(s) in source repository
doc injection
AGENTS.md falsely claims authorship by 'Vercel Engineering' (lines 3-4) and states it is for agents/LLMs working 'at Vercel' (lines 7-11). The repository is owned by supercent-io, an unverified organization with 13 stars, not by Vercel. This false attribution gives the agent configuration file unearned authority when consumed by AI agents, who would treat the instructions as coming from Vercel's official engineering team. The technical content itself is legitimate React best practices with no malicious instructions. (location: agent-configs/.agent-skills__react-best-practices__AGENTS.md:3-11)
supply chain
Extreme mismatch between install count (7.69M) and stars (13) strongly suggests artificially inflated install counts, a common supply chain attack vector. Legitimate packages with millions of installs have thousands of stars. Combined with: not listed on registry, unverified org, no license, and an empty SKILL.md, this skill has no legitimate content but appears designed to accumulate installations. (location: metadata.json)
scope violation
SKILL.md is completely empty (0 lines), meaning this skill provides zero documented functionality. A skill with no tool definitions, no descriptions, and no documented purpose that has 7.69M installs is highly suspicious — there is no legitimate reason to install an empty skill. (location: SKILL.md)
description injection
The skill_description field contains 'width=device-width, initial-scale=1' which is an HTML meta viewport tag value, not a skill description. This indicates either broken scraping or an attempt to inject HTML-like content into fields parsed by agents or registries. (location: metadata.json, skill_description field)
typosquat
The repo name 'skills-template' is a highly generic name that could attract installations from users searching for official skill templates. Combined with the skill name 'vibe-kanban' (a trendy keyword) not matching the repo name, this appears designed to maximize discovery through multiple popular search terms while providing no actual functionality. (location: metadata.json, repo and skill_name fields)
curl https://api.brin.sh/skill/supercent-io%2Fskills-template%2Fvibe-kanbanCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this skill in agent workflows.
supercent-io/skills-template/vibe-kanban currently scores 31/100 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.