Is github.com/dev-protocol/polymarket-arbitrage-bot safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
43/100

context safety score

A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
67

5 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

prompt injection

Hidden HTML element contains AI-targeting instructions

high

social engineering

The README uses promises of automated arbitrage profits, financial gain language ('locks in profit', 'controllable risk'), and persuasive framing to convince users to trust and run the software with their cryptocurrency private keys and API credentials. This creates a strong incentive for users to provide sensitive wallet credentials to software from an unverified source. (location: page-text.txt lines 932-950, README section 'Overview' and 'Quick Start')

critical

malicious redirect

The repository is hosted at github.com/dev-protocol/polymarket-arbitrage-bot, but the README's installation instructions direct users to clone from a completely different organization: 'git clone https://github.com/infraform/polymarket-arbitrage-bot.git'. The support links also redirect to 'github.com/infraform/polymarket-arbitrage-trading-bot'. This discrepancy between the displayed repo and the clone target is a classic supply-chain redirection attack — users believe they are installing code from dev-protocol but are actually cloning from the infraform account, which may contain malicious code. (location: page.html lines 1380, 1388, 1714, 1715; page-text.txt line 986)

critical

credential harvesting

The README instructs users to configure a .env file containing their cryptocurrency wallet PRIVATE_KEY ('Your wallet private key'), PROXY_WALLET_ADDRESS, API_KEY, API_SECRET, and API_PASSPHRASE. These instructions are paired with a clone URL pointing to a different GitHub organization (infraform) than the displayed repository (dev-protocol). If the infraform repository contains code designed to exfiltrate these values, users who follow the instructions will have their private keys and API credentials stolen, giving attackers full control of their Polygon/USDC wallets. (location: page.html lines 1404-1438, 1509-1512; page-text.txt lines 1002-1005, 1062-1073)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/page/github.com%2Fdev-protocol%2Fpolymarket-arbitrage-bot

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is github.com/dev-protocol/polymarket-arbitrage-bot safe for AI agents to use?

github.com/dev-protocol/polymarket-arbitrage-bot currently scores 43/100 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 web page.

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 web page 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 web page?

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 25, 2026

Verdict Scale

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

Trust Graph

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.