Arbiter

io.github.godwin105由 GitHub 账号 godwin105 发布v0.1.1更新于 Oct 24, 2026

Is this transaction safe to sign? Decodes what it really does and answers allow, warn or block.

发布方自己的服务:Ahkam — Saudi court rulings

已验证STDIO仅桌面金融安全与监控

概览

AI 生成的概览

本地 MCP 服务器,让助手按次以 USDC 付费购买 Arbiter 的判断:交易风险裁决、对手方核验与人工审核。

可以做什么
在签名前对未签名的 Algorand 或 EVM 交易做机器判断,返回 allow、warn、block 或 escalate,并附风险分与发现项(rekey、清空余额、手续费抽干、合约变更)。对照 NFD 注册表与主网核验付款对手方,识别被替换的地址、未做资产 opt-in、已 rekey 或冻结的账户。把模型无法定夺的问题升级给受审核的人工评审,并取回裁决;超时会给出免费的取回链接。所有路由都以同一裁决信封返回 decision、risk、confidence、findings 与 evidence。
适用场景
适用于助手即将签名或发送 Algorand、EVM 交易而需要独立安全检查时,付款代理需确认对手方地址确实能接收资产时,或某个决定需要人工判断时。纯读取、不签名也不付款的工作无需使用。
运行要求
以本地 npm 包通过 stdio 运行。需要 ARBITER_PRIVATE_KEY,即 base64 编码的 64 字节 Algorand 私钥,其账户需持有 USDC 并已 opt-in USDC 资产。可选 ARBITER_URL(默认使用托管服务)、ARBITER_MAX_PRICE_PER_CALL 与 ARBITER_MAX_SPEND_USD。需要访问 Arbiter 端点与 Algorand 的网络。
安装前请注意
该服务器持有有资金的私钥,并为每次调用签署 USDC 付款,重试循环可能耗尽钱包,应设置 ARBITER_MAX_PRICE_PER_CALL 与 ARBITER_MAX_SPEND_USD。各路由按次收费(约 0.002 至 0.25 美元)。交易与对手方数据会发送到托管的 Arbiter 服务并查询 Algorand。托管部署运行在空闲即休眠的免费方案上。

安装

在 SourceWeft 中

  1. 打开 控制台中的 Arbiter,将其添加到工作区。
  2. 为需要使用其工具的对话启用该服务。

Desktop only,通过 STDIO。 STDIO 服务会启动本地进程,因此需要 SourceWeft 桌面宿主。

其他 MCP 客户端

参照 仓库 中的启动说明。

README

Arbiter

The judgment layer for autonomous agents.

An AI agent about to act on the world often needs a judgment it cannot make by itself: is this transaction safe to sign, is this counterparty real, is this photo actually what it claims to be. Arbiter sells those judgments one call at a time, paid over x402 in USDC on Algorand.

Three routes, one response contract:

RouteJudgmentPrice
POST /v1/judge/transactionMachine — decode and risk-score an unsigned transaction before signing$0.002
POST /v1/judge/counterpartyData — is this payment counterparty who they claim to be$0.01
POST /v1/judge/humanHuman — questions a model cannot settle alone, answered by vetted reviewers$0.25

Every route returns the same verdict envelope, so an agent integrates one shape and can then ask for any kind of judgment without new branching logic:

jsonc
{  "decision": "block",        // allow | warn | block | escalate  "risk": 100,                // 0-100  "confidence": 1,            // 0-1; low confidence forces "escalate"  "findings": [ /* itemised, each with severity, detail and source */ ],  "evidence": { /* the decoded transaction, the counterparty record */ },  "meta": { "degraded": false, "latencyMs": 378 }}

New here, or explaining this to someone non-technical? What Arbiter actually does — no code, no jargon.

Live

https://arbiter-hs23.onrender.com — API, and the reviewer app at /work.

Preflight: 18 passed, 0 blocking failures. Running on Render's free plan, which has no persistent disk and spins down after 15 minutes idle — see DEPLOY.md for what that costs and the upgrade needed before the October leaderboard window.

Status

ComponentState
x402 payment core (Algorand, USDC, GoPlausible facilitator)Working, verified end-to-end
Bazaar discovery + x402-global-challenge tagWorking, verified in the 402 response
/v1/judge/transaction Algorand firewallWorking, 5/5 attack cases pass
/v1/judge/transaction EVM firewallWorking, 7/7 drain patterns pass, EIP-7702 aware
/v1/judge/counterparty engineWorking, 5/5 cases pass against live mainnet + NFD
/v1/judge/human marketplaceWorking, consensus + reviewer reliability + payout ledger
On-chain payout settlementWorking — real USDC paid to a reviewer on-chain
SDK, MCP server, LangChain, ElizaOS, paying proxyBuilt, typechecked, runtime-verified
CrewAI tools (Python)Built; runs through the paying proxy — see below
KeeperHub integrationWorking, real Sepolia transaction executed
Reviewer app (React)Live at /work, verified end-to-end with a paid question

The transaction firewall

Autonomous agents lose funds in a small number of specific ways. The firewall decodes the actual transaction bytes and reports what signing would really do:

  • Rekey — rekeyTo permanently transfers signing authority over the account
  • Close-remainder — sweeps the entire ALGO balance regardless of the stated amount
  • Asset close-out — sweeps the entire ASA holding regardless of the stated amount
  • Clawback — moves assets out of a third party's account
  • Fee drain — the balance leaves via an oversized fee rather than a visible transfer
  • App delete / update — destroys or silently replaces contract logic
  • Asset-level risk: creator-held clawback and freeze authority, non-existent assets
  • Account-level risk: signer already rekeyed, unfunded recipient, expired validity window

Run it against real, freshly-encoded transactions:

bash
npm run demo:attacks
[BLOCK]  Rekey attack              risk=100/100  confidence=1  1365ms[BLOCK]  Close-remainder drain     risk=100/100  confidence=1   378ms[BLOCK]  Asset close-out drain     risk=100/100  confidence=1  1432ms[BLOCK]  Fee drain                 risk=100/100  confidence=1   379ms[ALLOW]  Benign payment            risk=0/100    confidence=1   398ms

The benign case returning zero findings matters as much as the blocks — a firewall that cries wolf gets switched off.

Counterparty verification

Catches the two silent, expensive failures a payout agent cannot see by reading an invoice:

  • Swapped payment address — the invoice is genuine and the payee is real, but the address belongs to someone else. Resolved against the NFD registry and compared to every address the identity legitimately controls.
  • Missing asset opt-in — on Algorand an ASA transfer to an account that has not opted in is rejected outright. The payment simply never arrives.

Plus rekeyed recipients, frozen holdings, below-minimum balances, unregistered or expired identities, and never-funded addresses.

bash
npm run demo:counterparty     # live NFD registry + Algorand mainnet, read-only

The two cases worth reading are adjacent and opposite: an identity that verifies but whose address cannot receive the asset, and an identity that fails on an address that could. Both block, for entirely different reasons.

Human judgment

Questions a model cannot settle alone go to vetted reviewers. The paid call long-polls for a bounded window; if reviewers answer in time the verdict returns inline, otherwise the caller gets a pending verdict and a free retrieval URL. Timing out never costs a second payment.

bash
npm run demo:human
  • Majority vote across a configurable quorum, with the agreement ratio exposed
  • Confidence is agreement discounted by how proven the panel is, so a unanimous answer from unproven reviewers is not treated as certainty
  • Reviewers are paid for participating, not for agreeing — paying for agreement incentivises guessing the majority rather than reporting what you saw
  • Implausibly fast answers are flagged as a quality signal
  • Per-reviewer reliability accrues from consensus agreement over time

Worker API (/v1/work/*) is unpriced: reviewers are the supply side.

Paying reviewers

bash
npm run settle -- --dry-run    # check everything, send nothingnpm run settle                 # pay

Two rules govern this, and both cost something to follow:

Claim before broadcasting. Payouts move to settling with an attempt id before any transaction is sent, and that attempt id is written into the transaction's note field. A process that dies mid-flight therefore leaves money unpaid rather than paid twice — unpaid is recoverable by a person reading the stuck rows against the ledger, paid twice is not.

Check the payee before paying. Every payout address goes through Arbiter's own /v1/judge/counterparty engine first. Not decoration: a USDC transfer to an account that has not opted in is rejected by the protocol, so paying blind burns a fee and leaves the reviewer unpaid with no explanation. Blocked payouts stay pending and are retried once the reviewer opts in.

[PAID]  0.150000 USDC -> GBRO5EM4JM57PDPS…        txid  SIEXIGX6KQKA4D4PTOUL7R6M5BDP4BIUEW2TTOIFZHBU233LSKWQ        note  arbiter:payout:pay_msft8csu_rfq0ch
[SKIP]  0.150000 USDC -> OEQWDYGTEXMDWSH2…        Arbiter blocked this payee: Counterparty has not opted in to the asset

The payout account is configured separately from PAY_TO on purpose. PAY_TO accumulates revenue and its key never needs to be on a server; the payout account holds working capital only, so a compromised host cannot drain earnings.

Design rule: the caller has already paid

By the time an engine runs, the agent has been charged. So no upstream failure may throw. Every algod lookup has a hard timeout and returns a result that says whether data was actually obtained; a failed lookup lowers confidence and sets meta.degraded, and the static decode rules — which catch the critical severities — still run. A degraded verdict is still a useful verdict.

Separately, confidence < 0.4 returns escalate rather than allow, so a thin-evidence verdict can never be mistaken for a clean bill of health.

Getting it into agents

Volume on a usage-ranked leaderboard comes from other people's agents calling you, so the clients are the product surface, not an afterthought. Full detail in clients/README.md.

PackageFor
@arbiterlabs/sdkTypeScript agents; pays x402 automatically
@arbiterlabs/mcpAny MCP host — Claude Code, Claude Desktop, OpenClaw
@arbiterlabs/langchainLangChain.js tools
@arbiterlabs/elizaElizaOS plugin
@arbiterlabs/proxyLocal paying sidecar for non-TypeScript agents
arbiter-crewaiCrewAI (Python), via the sidecar

Spend limits live in the client rather than in advice to integrators, because an agent in a retry loop against a paid endpoint is a wallet-draining bug:

ts
const client = new ArbiterClient({  baseUrl: process.env.ARBITER_URL,  privateKey: process.env.ALGO_KEY,  maxPricePerCallUsd: 0.5,  maxTotalSpendUsd: 10,});

Both caps are enforced in the payment selector, before anything is signed.

Why Python needs a sidecar

Paying x402 on Algorand requires an AVM scheme client, and that exists only in TypeScript today. x402 2.18 ships no AVM client, and x402-avm 2.0.2 — despite the name — ships none either, has no algosdk dependency, and installs into the x402 namespace, overwriting the base package. So a Python agent cannot construct an Algorand x402 payment at all.

@arbiterlabs/proxy therefore holds the key, pays, and re-exposes the judgments unpriced on loopback. That is also the better arrangement in general: one process holds the funded key and enforces one budget, instead of every agent process carrying a copy of both.

Setup

bash
npm installcp .env.example .env    # then set PAY_TOnpm run dev

PAY_TO must be a real Algorand address opted in to the USDC ASA for the network you are running (testnet 10458941, mainnet 31566704), or settlement fails.

Verify the payment gate:

bash
curl -i -X POST http://localhost:4021/v1/judge/transaction \  -H 'content-type: application/json' \  -d '{"chain":"algorand","transaction":"abc"}'

Expect HTTP 402 with a base64 PAYMENT-REQUIRED header carrying the price, asset, payTo, feePayer and the Bazaar discovery schema.

A note on the facilitator network identifier

The GoPlausible facilitator advertises Algorand using the full padded base64 genesis hash as the CAIP-2 reference:

algorand:SGO1GKSzyE7IEPItTxCByw9x8FmnrCDexi9/cOUJOiI=

while @x402/avm's ALGORAND_TESTNET_CAIP2 uses the CAIP-2-legal 32-character truncation:

algorand:SGO1GKSzyE7IEPItTxCByw9x8FmnrCDe

Both normalize to the same network inside the AVM scheme, but the resource server validates route configuration against the facilitator's advertised strings by exact equality — so using the SDK constant fails startup with missing_facilitator. src/facilitator.ts resolves the identifier from /supported at boot and matches by normalization, which works with either form and will keep working if the padding is fixed upstream. It also picks up the advertised feePayer, so callers can pay in USDC without holding ALGO for gas.

Competition configuration

Built for the Algorand Global x402 Challenge as a Composite Entry: all three routes share one payTo, so their volume rolls up into a single merchant entry while each route stays individually discoverable in the Bazaar.

Requirements wired in and verified in the live 402 response:

  • Paid endpoint returning HTTP 402 without payment
  • GoPlausible facilitator (not an alternative facilitator)
  • Bazaar discovery extension with per-route input/output schemas
  • x402-global-challenge tag on every route
  • Single consistent payTo across all routes
  • Deployed to public HTTPS on MainNet
  • One real MainNet payment settled, USDC confirmed received
  • Listed on the Algorand MainNet USDC leaderboard

The first settled MainNet payment was IUTXAWFK…: 0.002 USDC (ASA 31566704) in round 63,807,235, verified on the indexer rather than taken from the settlement response.

Attribution is by payTo address. The leaderboard exposes no tag filter, so the x402-global-challenge tag aids Bazaar discovery but does not gate scoring — npm run preflight -- <url> now confirms the listing directly instead of inferring it from the tag.

assertChallengeReady() fails startup if a mainnet deployment is still pointing at localhost or plain HTTP.

来源:README.md,提交 a81cee4

工具

0
SourceWeft 尚未在沙箱中启动过该软件包,因此其工具未知。

版本历史

1
  1. v0.1.1最新Sep 16, 2026

评分

已满足适用检查项的 50%

该评分衡量此收录条目的完整程度,依据注册中心条目、端点与公开来源计算得出。它不是对服务器本身的评价,也不表示服务器安全或当前可用:可连通性是带日期的检查结果,评分也不包含安装量或用户评价。

  • 近 30 天内可连通25 分

    请保持端点能够响应 MCP 握手;SourceWeft 每 30 天探测一次。

  • 已声明认证方式10 分

    请在注册中心条目中声明凭据请求头,或保持端点能够响应探测,以便判定其认证方式。

  • 已列出工具15 分

    请让服务器在无凭据时响应 tools/list,或发布可在沙箱中无凭据启动的软件包。

  • 描述必需15 分
  • 图标10 分
  • 文档15 分
  • 许可证10 分

其他 Arbiter 集成