Skill: gate-exchange/gate-info-risk-check (version 1.0.3)

--- name: gate-info-riskcheck version: "2026.4.3-1" updated: "2026-04-03" description: "Token and address risk assessment. Use this skill ONLY when the user's query is exclusively about token/contract/address security with no other analysis dimensions. Trigger phrases: is this token safe, check contract risk, is this address safe, honeypot, rug. If the query ALSO mentions fundamentals, technicals, news, sentiment, or any other analysis dimension, use gate-info-research instead — it handles multi-dimension queries in a single unified report. Address risk mode (is this address safe) is exclusive to this skill and must NOT be routed to gate-info-research." required_credentials: [] required_env_vars: [] required_permissions: [] --- # gate-info-riskcheck ## General Rules ⚠️ STOP — You MUST read and strictly follow the shared runtime rules before proceeding. Do NOT select or call any tool until all rules are read. These rules have the highest priority. → Read `../gate-runtime-rules.md` → Also read `../info-news-runtime-rules.md` for gate-info / gate-news shared rules (tool degradation, report standards, security, routing, and optional local maintenance when `scripts/` is present). - **Only call MCP tools explicitly listed in this skill.** Tools not documented here must NOT be called, even if they exist in the MCP server. > Security guardian Skill. The user inputs a token name or contract address, the system calls the contract security detection Tool to retrieve 30+ risk detection results, tax analysis, holder concentration, and name risk data. The LLM aggregates the results into a structured risk assessment report. Address compliance checking will be added in a future phase. **Trigger Scenarios**: User mentions a token/contract address + keywords like safe, risk, check, audit, honeypot, rug, contract security, scam. **Local maintenance (optional, repository copy only):** - If `scripts/update-skill.*` exists in the repository copy, `check` may compare the installed copy with the packaged skill source used by the current install. - Ask the user before `apply`. - `apply` updates files within this skill directory only. --- ## MCP Dependencies ### Required MCP Servers | MCP Server | Status | |------------|--------| | Gate-Info | ✅ Required | ### MCP Tools Used **Query Operations (Read-only)** - info_coin_get_coin_info - info_compliance_check_address_risk - info_compliance_check_token_security - info_onchain_get_address_info ### Authentication - API Key Required: No - Credentials Source: None; this skill uses read-only Gate Info / Gate News MCP access only. ### Installation Check - Required: Gate-Info - Install: Use the local Gate MCP installation flow for the current host IDE before continuing. - Continue only after the required Gate MCP server is available in the current environment. ## Routing Rules | User Intent | Keywords/Pattern | Action | |-------------|-----------------|--------| | Token contract security check | "is this token safe" "any risk with PEPE contract" "check 0x... contract" | Execute this Skill (Token Security mode) | | Address risk check | "is this address safe" "is this a blacklisted address" | Execute this Skill (Address Risk mode — currently degraded) | | Single coin analysis | "analyze SOL for me" | Route to `gate-info-coinanalysis` | | Address tracking | "track this address" "fund flow" | Route to `gate-info-addresstracker` | | Token on-chain analysis | "on-chain chip distribution" | Route to `gate-info-tokenonchain` | | Project due diligence | "is this project legit" "team background" | Route to `gate-info-coinanalysis` (fundamentals focus) | --- ## Execution Workflow ### Step 0: Multi-Dimension Intent Check Before executing this Skill, check if the user's query involves multiple analysis dimensions: - If the query is about **address safety** (e.g., "is this address safe", "check 0x..."), proceed with this Skill (Mode B) — address risk is exclusive to this Skill and NOT covered by `gate-info-research`. - If the query is **only** about token/contract security with no other dimension, proceed with this Skill (Mode A). - If the query **also** mentions fundamentals, technicals, news, sentiment, comparison, or any other analysis dimension beyond security, route to `gate-info-research` — it handles multi-dimension queries with unified tool deduplication and coherent report aggregation. ### Mode A: Token Security Check (Core Mode — Ready) #### Step 1: Intent Recognition & Parameter Extraction Extract from user input: - `token`: Token symbol (e.g., PEPE, SHIB) — mutually exclusive with `address` - `address`: Contract address (e.g., 0x...) — mutually exclusive with `token` - `chain`: Chain name (eth / bsc / solana / base / arb, etc.) — **required** **Parameter Completion Strategy**: - If user provides only token without chain: ask "Please specify the chain (e.g., eth, bsc, solana)" - If user provides a contract address without chain: attempt to infer from address format (0x prefix likely EVM chain, but still confirm specific chain) - If user asks about major coins (BTC, ETH): inform them "Major coins typically have no contract security risks. If you need to check, please specify the wrapped token or a Meme token on a specific chain" #### Step 2: Call 2 MCP Tools in Parallel | Step | MCP Tool | Parameters | Retrieved Data | Parallel | |------|----------|------------|----------------|----------| | 1a | [REDACTED_SECRET] | `[REDACTED_SECRET] or address={address}, chain={chain}, scope="full", lang="en"` | Risk level, 30+ risk items, tax analysis, holder concentration, name risk, honeypot detection, open-source status | Yes | | 1b | `info_coin_get_coin_info` | `query={token or symbol}` | Token basic info (project name, sector, listed exchanges — supplementary context) | Yes | > Both Tools are called in parallel with no dependencies. #### Step 3: LLM Aggregation — Generate Risk Report Pass the security detection data and fundamentals to the LLM to generate the assessment report using the template below. ### Mode B: Address Risk Check (Degraded Mode) > [REDACTED_SECRET] is not yet available (P3 phase). Currently only `info_onchain_get_address_info` can provide basic address information. | Step | MCP Tool | Parameters | Retrieved Data | Status | |------|----------|------------|----------------|--------| | 1 | `info_onchain_get_address_info` | `address={address}, chain={chain}` | Basic address info, balance, transaction count | ✅ Available | | 2 | [REDACTED_SECRET] | — | Address compliance risk labels | ❌ Not ready | **Degradation Handling**: Inform the user "Address compliance risk detection is under development. Currently only basic address information is available. For token contract security checks, please provide the token name or contract address." --- ## Report Template (Token Security Mode) ```markdown ## {token} Contract Security Report ### 1. Risk Overview | Metric | Result | |--------|--------| | Chain | {chain} | | Contract Address | {address} | | Overall Risk Level | {risk_level_text} ({highest_risk_level}) | | High-Risk Items | {high_risk_num} | | Medium-Risk Items | {middle_risk_num} | | Low-Risk Items | {low_risk_num} | | Honeypot Detected | {is_honeypot ? "⛔ Yes" : "✅ No"} | | Open Source | {is_open_source ? "✅ Yes" : "⚠️ No"} | ### 2. High-Risk Item Details {If high-risk items exist, list each:} | Risk Item | Description | Value | |-----------|------------|-------| | {risk_name_1} | {risk_desc_1} | {risk_value_1} | | {risk_name_2} | {risk_desc_2} | {risk_value_2} | | ... | ... | ... | {If no high-risk items: "✅ No high-risk items detected"} ### 3. Tax Analysis | Metric | Value | Status | |--------|-------|--------| | Buy Tax | {buy_tax}% | {Normal/Elevated/Extreme} | | Sell Tax | {sell_tax}% | {Normal/Elevated/Extreme} | | Transfer Tax | {transfer_tax}% | {Normal/Elevated/Extreme} | {If multiple DEX pools have different tax rates, list the major pool breakdowns} ### 4. Holder Concentration | Metric | Value | Status | |--------|-------|--------| | Holder Count | {holder_count} | {Many/Normal/Low} | | Top 10 Holder % | {top10_percent}% | {Normal/High/Extremely Concentrated} | | Top 100 Holder % | {top100_percent}% | — | | Developer Holdings | {dev_holding_percent}% | {Normal/High} | | Insider Holdings | {insider_percent}% | {Normal/High} | | Largest Single Holder | {max_holder_percent}% | {Normal/High} | ### 5. Name Risk | Metric | Result | |--------|--------| | Domain Token | {is_domain_token ? "⚠️ Yes" : "✅ No"} | | Contains Sensitive Words | {is_sensitive ? "⚠️ Yes" : "✅ No"} | | Sensitive Words | {sensitive_words} | ### 6. Project Basic Info (Supplementary) | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | Project Name | {project_name} | | Sector | {category} | | Listed on Major Exchanges | {exchange_list} | ### 7. Overall Assessment {LLM generates a 3-5 sentence comprehensive risk assessment:} - Overall contract safety level - Most critical risk items (if any) - Whether holder concentration is healthy - Whether tax rates are reasonable - Whether further manual audit is recommended ### ⚠️ Risk Warnings {Auto-generated explicit warnings based on detection results:} - Honeypot detection (if applicable) - High tax warning (if applicable) - Excessive holder concentration (if applicable) - Contract not open-source (if applicable) > The above analysis is based on automated on-chain data detection and cannot cover all risk scenarios. Please combine with project due diligence and community research for comprehensive judgment. ``` --- ## Decision Logic | Condition | Assessment | |-----------|------------| | `is_honeypot == true` | **Highest-level warning**: "⛔ Detected as honeypot contract — extremely likely unable to sell. Do NOT purchase." | | `is_open_source == false` | Flag "Contract is not open-source — code logic cannot be audited, elevated risk" | | `buy_tax > 5%` or `sell_tax > 5%` | Flag "Abnormally high tax rate — extreme trading costs" | | `buy_tax > 10%` or `sell_tax > 10%` | Flag "⛔ Extreme tax rate — suspected malicious contract" | | `top10_percent > 50%` | Flag "Highly concentrated holdings — insider/whale dump risk" | | `top10_percent > 80%` | Flag "⛔ Extremely concentrated holdings — dump risk is critical" | | `dev_holding_percent > 10%` | Flag "Developer holdings are elevated — watch for sell-off risk" | | `holder_count < 100` | Flag "Extremely few holders — insufficient liquidity and decentralization" | | `high_risk_num > 0` | List each high-risk item with explanation | | `high_risk_num == 0 && middle_risk_num <= 2` | Flag "Contract security check passed — no significant risks detected" | | `is_domain_token == true` | Flag "This is a domain token — unrelated to the project of the same name. Verify carefully." | | `is_sensitive == true` | Flag "Token name contains sensitive words — possible impersonation/fraud risk" | | Any Tool returns empty/error | Skip that section; note "Data unavailable" in the report | --- ## Risk Level Mapping | `highest_risk_level` Value | Risk Level | Label | Description | |---------------------------|------------|-------|-------------| | 0 | Safe | ✅ Safe | No risk items detected | | 1 | Low Risk | Low Risk | Only low-risk items present | | 2 | Medium Risk | Medium Risk | Medium-risk items present — monitor | | 3 | High Risk | High Risk | High-risk items present — exercise extreme caution | | is_honeypot=true | Critical Risk | ⛔ Critical Risk | Honeypot contract — strongly advise staying away | --- ## Error Handling | Error Type | Handling | |------------|----------| | Missing chain parameter | Prompt user: "Please specify the chain (e.g., eth, bsc, solana, base, arb)" | | Neither token nor address provided | Prompt user: "Please provide a token symbol or contract address" | | Contract address does not exist / unrecognizable | Prompt user to verify the address and confirm the chain | | Token is a major coin (BTC/ETH, etc.) | Inform: "Major coins typically have no contract security risks. For contract token checks, specify the wrapped token or Meme token on a specific chain" | | check_token_security timeout/error | Return error message; suggest trying again later | | Address risk query (currently unavailable) | Inform: "Address compliance detection is under development." Guide user to `gate-info-addresstracker` for basic address info | | User inputs a regular address thinking it's a contract | Attempt detection; if empty result, inform "This may not be a contract address. For address information, use the Address Tracker feature" | --- ## Cross-Skill Routing | User Follow-up Intent | Route To | |-----------------------|----------| | "Analyze this coin for me" | `gate-info-coinanalysis` | | "What about on-chain chip distribution?" | `gate-info-tokenonchain` | | "Any recent news?" | `gate-news-briefing` | | "Track this address" | `gate-info-addresstracker` | | "Compare this with XX" | `gate-info-coincompare` | | "How is this coin's price action?" | `gate-info-trendanalysis` | --- ## Available Tools & Degradation Notes | PRD-Defined Tool | Actually Available Tool | Status | Degradation Strategy | |-----------------|----------------------|--------|---------------------| | [REDACTED_SECRET] | [REDACTED_SECRET] | ✅ Ready | — | | `info_coin_get_coin_info` | `info_coin_get_coin_info` | ✅ Ready | — | | `info_onchain_get_address_info` | `info_onchain_get_address_info` | ✅ Ready | Address mode can retrieve basic info | | [REDACTED_SECRET] | — | ❌ Not ready (P3) | Address compliance risk detection unavailable — inform user and guide to address tracker | --- ## Safety Rules 1. **Mandatory honeypot warning**: When `is_honeypot=true` is detected, display the "⛔ Critical Risk" warning in the most prominent position — never downplay 2. **No investment advice**: Risk assessment is based on on-chain data and must include a "not investment advice" disclaimer 3. **No absolute safety guarantees**: Even if all checks pass, state that "automated detection cannot cover all risks" 4. **Data transparency**: Label detection data source and timestamp 5. **Flag missing data**: When any dimension has no data, explicitly inform the user — never fabricate safety conclusions 6. **Address privacy**: Do not proactively expose address holder identities — only display publicly available on-chain data

path: CHANGELOG.md
content: # Changelog

**Note:** Changes are consolidated as one initial entry for now; versioned entries will be used after official release.

---

## [2026.4.3-1] - 2026-04-03

### Changed

- Added `.clawhubignore` so repository-only maintenance scripts are excluded from published skill bundles.
- Clarified in `SKILL.md` that local maintenance steps apply only to the repository copy.
- No MCP workflow or business logic changes.

---

## [2026.4.1-1] - 2026-04-01

### Changed

- **info-news-runtime-rules.md**: Align version-check UX — do not surface technical failure details to end users; forbid auto-download of `update-skill.sh` / `update-skill.ps1` (manual copy from gate/gate-skills allowed); success paths (`update_available` / strict exit 3) still require per-skill confirmation before `apply`.
- **SKILL.md — Trigger update**: Document ClawHub packages may omit `update-skill.ps1`; agent rules for Bash vs PowerShell vs WSL/Git Bash vs silent skip; use the same shell family for Steps 1–2; do not run `apply` / `revoke-pending` when Step 1 is skipped; dual-arg `DEST` / `name` order with script auto-swap when only one path contains `SKILL.md`.
- **scripts/update-skill.sh**, **scripts/update-skill.ps1**: Strict `check` (`GATE_SKILL_CHECK_STRICT=1`, exit 3, `GATE_SKILL_CONFIRM_TOKEN`, `revoke-pending`); expanded default install-root resolution (Cursor, Codex, OpenClaw, `.agents`, Antigravity).

---

## [2026.3.25-1] - 2026-03-25

### Added

- **Runtime rules**: SKILL.md references shared `info-news-runtime-rules.md` with `gate-runtime-rules.md`; **Trigger update** (check / confirm / apply) and **Routing Rules** aligned to the gate-info / gate-news rollout.
- **Update scripts**: `scripts/update-skill.sh`, `scripts/update-skill.ps1` (same pilot implementation as sibling Info/News skills).

---

## [2026.3.12-1] - 2026-03-12

### Added

- Skill: Token and address risk assessment. Trigger: is this token safe, check contract risk, is this address safe. Mode A: info_compliance_check_token_security + info_coin_get_coin_info. Mode B: Address Risk (degraded — check_address_risk not yet available).
- SKILL.md: Token Security workflow, Address Risk degradation, Report Template (7 sections), Decision Logic, Risk Level Mapping, Error Handling, Available Tools & Degradation Notes, Safety. Synced from docs/pd-vs-skills/skills/gate-info-riskcheck; tool names in underscore form.
- README.md, references/scenarios.md.

### Audit

- Read-only. Mandatory honeypot warning when detected; no investment advice; no absolute safety guarantees.


path: README.md
content: # gate-info-riskcheck

## Overview

An AI Agent skill that performs **token contract security and address risk assessment**. **Mode A (Token Security)**: parallel `info_compliance_check_token_security` + `info_coin_get_coin_info` → structured risk report (risk overview, high-risk items, tax, holder concentration, name risk, project info, overall assessment). **Mode B (Address Risk)**: degraded — only `info_onchain_get_address_info` available; `info_compliance_check_address_risk` not yet ready. Chain parameter is required for token check. Read-only.

### Core Capabilities

| Capability | Description | Example |
|------------|-------------|---------|
| **Token security** | Honeypot, tax, holder concentration, name risk, 30+ risk items | "Is this token safe" / "Check PEPE contract risk" |
| **Contract check** | Risk level, high/medium/low risk counts, open source | "Check 0x... contract on eth" |
| **Address risk** | Currently degraded; basic address info only until check_address_risk is ready | "Is this address safe" |
| **7-section report** | Risk Overview, High-Risk Details, Tax, Holder Concentration, Name Risk, Project Info, Overall Assessment + Risk Warnings | Per SKILL.md Report Template |

### Routing

| User intent | Action |
|-------------|--------|
| Token/contract security | Execute this skill (Token Security mode) |
| Address risk | Execute this skill (Address Risk mode — degraded) |
| Single coin analysis | Route to `gate-info-coinanalysis` |
| Address tracking / fund flow | Route to `gate-info-addresstracker` |
| On-chain chip distribution | Route to `gate-info-tokenonchain` |

### Architecture

- **Input**: Token symbol or contract address + **chain** (required). Or address for Address Risk mode.
- **Tools**: Token mode — `info_compliance_check_token_security`, `info_coin_get_coin_info` (parallel). Address mode — `info_onchain_get_address_info` only; `info_compliance_check_address_risk` not available.
- **Output**: Contract Security Report (7 sections) or address degradation message. **Decision Logic** (honeypot, tax, concentration, name risk), **Risk Level Mapping**, **Error Handling**, **Safety** (mandatory honeypot warning, no safety guarantee) — see SKILL.md.

## Source

- **Repository**: [github.com/gate/gate-skills](https://github.com/gate/gate-skills)
- **Publisher**: [Gate.com](https://www.gate.com)


path: references/mcp.md
content: ---
name: gate-info-riskcheck-mcp
version: "2026.3.30-1"
updated: "2026-03-30"
description: "MCP execution specification for token/address risk checking in Gate-Info domain, including degraded address-risk handling and structured reporting."
---

# Gate Info RiskCheck MCP Specification

> Authoritative MCP execution document for `gate-info-riskcheck`.

## 1. Scope and Trigger Boundaries

In scope:
- Token/contract security checks
- Address safety checks (degraded mode currently)

Out of scope / route elsewhere:
- Multi-dimension research (fundamental + technical + news + risk) -> `gate-info-research`
- Address flow tracing -> `gate-info-addresstracker`
- General coin analysis without security focus -> `gate-info-coinanalysis`

## 2. MCP Detection and Fallback

Detection:
1. Verify Gate-Info MCP is available.
2. Probe with read tool (`info_coin_get_coin_info` or `info_compliance_check_token_security`).

Fallback:
- MCP unavailable: show setup guidance and return no-fabrication notice.
- Address-risk tool unavailable: use degraded mode with `info_onchain_get_address_info` only.

## 3. Authentication

- API key not required for this skill.
- If service-level auth errors occur, return transparent error and stop execution.

## 4. MCP Resources

No MCP Resources required.

## 5. Tool Calling Specification

| Tool | Required inputs | Key return fields | Common errors |
|---|---|---|---|
| `info_compliance_check_token_security` | `token` or `address`, `chain` | risk level, risk items, tax, holder concentration, honeypot, open-source flags | unsupported chain/token |
| `info_coin_get_coin_info` | symbol/query | project metadata, market context | ambiguous symbol |
| `info_onchain_get_address_info` | `address`, `chain` | basic address state, balances, tx count | address invalid |
| `info_compliance_check_address_risk` | address payload (when available) | compliance risk labels | currently degraded/unavailable |

## 6. Execution SOP (Non-Skippable)

### 6.1 Intent gate
1. If request includes non-risk analysis dimensions, route to `gate-info-research`.
2. If request is strictly security-focused, continue.

### 6.2 Token security mode
1. Normalize input (`token` or `address`) and require `chain`.
2. Run in parallel:
   - `info_compliance_check_token_security`
   - `info_coin_get_coin_info`
3. Aggregate into standardized risk report.
4. Highlight high-risk items first.

### 6.3 Address risk degraded mode
1. Call `info_onchain_get_address_info` for baseline context.
2. If `info_compliance_check_address_risk` unavailable, clearly disclose degradation.
3. Provide safe next actions (manual verification + alternate checks).

## 7. Output Templates

```markdown
## Token Security Report
- Input: {token_or_address} on {chain}
- Overall Risk: {risk_level}
- High-Risk Count: {high_count}
- Honeypot: {yes_or_no}
- Tax Risk: {tax_summary}
- Holder Concentration: {holder_summary}
- Recommendation: {actionable_next_step}
```

```markdown
## Address Safety (Degraded)
- Address: {address}
- Chain: {chain}
- Basic State: {summary_from_onchain_info}
- Compliance Risk Label: {not_available_or_value}
- Note: Address compliance risk engine is currently degraded.
```

## 8. Safety and Degradation Rules

1. Never present a token/address as absolutely safe; use risk levels with evidence.
2. If a required field (`chain`) is missing, block execution and request completion.
3. Clearly separate observed facts from model inference.
4. In degraded mode, explicitly state unavailable checks and avoid false confidence.
5. Preserve critical warnings (honeypot/high tax/high concentration) at top of report.


path: references/scenarios.md
content: # gate-info-riskcheck — Scenarios & Prompt Examples

## Scenario 1: Token security check with symbol + chain (English)

**Context**: User asks if a token is safe and provides chain.

**Prompt Examples**:
- "Is PEPE safe on eth"
- "Check the risk of this coin on base"
- "Any issues with SHIB contract on bsc"

**Expected Behavior**:
1. Extract token (e.g. PEPE), chain (eth). Call in parallel: `info_compliance_check_token_security`(token=PEPE, chain=eth, scope=full), `info_coin_get_coin_info`(query=PEPE).
2. Output **7-section Contract Security Report**: Risk Overview, High-Risk Item Details, Tax Analysis, Holder Concentration, Name Risk, Project Basic Info, Overall Assessment + Risk Warnings. If honeypot detected, show Critical Risk warning prominently.

## Scenario 2: Contract address + chain (Chinese)

**Context**: User provides contract address and chain.

**Prompt Examples**:
- "Is this contract 0x... safe on eth"
- "Check this contract 0x... on base"

**Expected Behavior**:
1. Extract address, chain. Call [REDACTED_SECRET](address=0x..., chain=eth) and `info_coin_get_coin_info` (if symbol derivable). Generate same 7-section report.
2. Data unavailable for a section → mark "Data unavailable"; do not fabricate.

## Scenario 3: Token without chain (prompt for chain)

**Context**: User asks about token risk but does not specify chain.

**Prompt Examples**:
- "Is this token safe"
- "Is PEPE safe"

**Expected Behavior**:
1. Prompt user: "Please specify the chain (e.g., eth, bsc, solana, base, arb)".
2. Do not call tools until chain is provided.

## Scenario 4: Address risk (degraded mode)

**Context**: User asks if an address is safe.

**Prompt Examples**:
- "Is this address safe 0x..."
- "Is this a blacklisted address"

**Expected Behavior**:
1. Call `info_onchain_get_address_info`(address, chain). Do not call `info_compliance_check_address_risk` (not available).
2. Inform user: "Address compliance risk detection is under development. Currently only basic address information is available. For token contract security checks, please provide the token name or contract address." Optionally show basic address info and route to `gate-info-addresstracker` for full tracking.

## Scenario 5: Major coin (BTC/ETH) — guide to specify wrapped/meme

**Context**: User asks if BTC or ETH is safe.

**Prompt Examples**:
- "Is BTC safe"
- "Check ETH contract risk"

**Expected Behavior**:
1. Inform: "Major coins typically have no contract security risks. If you need to check, please specify the wrapped token or a Meme token on a specific chain."
2. Do not run full token security check for native BTC/ETH without clarification.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)