Arbiter

io.github.godwin105由 GitHub 帳號 godwin105 發布v0.1.1更新於 Oct 24, 2026

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

發布方自己的服務:Ahkam — Saudi court rulings

已驗證STDIO僅桌面金融安全與監控

概覽

AI 產生的概覽

本機 MCP 伺服器,讓助理按次以 USDC 付費取得 Arbiter 的判斷:交易風險裁決、對手方核驗與人工審核。

可以做什麼
在簽署前對未簽署的 Algorand 或 EVM 交易做機器判斷,回傳 allow、warn、block 或 escalate,並附風險分數與發現項目(rekey、清空餘額、手續費抽乾、合約變更)。比對 NFD 註冊表與主網核驗付款對手方,辨識被替換的地址、未做資產 opt-in、已 rekey 或凍結的帳戶。把模型無法決定的問題升級給受審核的人工評審並取回裁決;逾時會提供免費取回連結。所有路由都以同一個裁決信封回傳 decision、risk、confidence、findings 與 evidence。
適用情境
適用於助理即將簽署或送出 Algorand、EVM 交易而需要獨立安全檢查時,付款代理需確認對手方地址確實能接收資產時,或某項決定需要人工判斷時。純讀取、不簽署也不付款的工作不需要使用。
執行需求
以本機 npm 套件透過 stdio 執行。需要 ARBITER_PRIVATE_KEY,即 base64 編碼的 64 位元組 Algorand 私鑰,其帳戶需持有 USDC 並已 opt-in USDC 資產。可選 ARBITER_URL(預設使用託管服務)、ARBITER_MAX_PRICE_PER_CALL 與 ARBITER_MAX_SPEND_USD。需要連線至 Arbiter 端點與 Algorand 的網路。
安裝前請注意
此伺服器持有有資金的私鑰,並為每次呼叫簽署 USDC 付款,重試迴圈可能耗盡錢包,應設定 ARBITER_MAX_PRICE_PER_CALL 與 ARBITER_MAX_SPEND_USD。各路由按次收費(約 0.002 至 0.25 美元)。交易與對手方資料會傳送到託管的 Arbiter 服務並查詢 Algorand。託管部署執行於閒置即休眠的免費方案。

安裝

在 SourceWeft 中

  1. 開啟 儀表板中的 Arbiter,將其新增到工作區。
  2. 為需要使用其工具的對話啟用該服務。

Desktop only,透過 STDIO。 STDIO 服務會啟動本機處理程序,因此需要 SourceWeft 桌面主機。

其他 MCP 客戶端

參照 儲存庫 中的啟動說明。

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.

來源:README.md,提交 a81cee4

工具

0
SourceWeft 尚未在沙箱中啟動過該軟體包,因此其工具未知。

版本歷史

1
  1. v0.1.1最新Sep 16, 2026

評分

已滿足適用檢查項的 50%

該評分衡量此收錄條目的完整程度,依據註冊中心條目、端點與公開來源計算得出。它不是對伺服器本身的評價,也不表示伺服器安全或目前可用:可連通性是帶日期的檢查結果,評分也不包含安裝量或使用者評價。

  • 近 30 天內可連通25 分

    請保持端點能夠回應 MCP 握手;SourceWeft 每 30 天探測一次。

  • 已宣告認證方式10 分

    請在註冊中心條目中宣告憑證請求標頭,或保持端點能夠回應探測,以便判定其認證方式。

  • 已列出工具15 分

    請讓伺服器在無憑證時回應 tools/list,或發布可在沙箱中無憑證啟動的軟體包。

  • 描述必需15 分
  • 圖示10 分
  • 文件15 分
  • 授權條款10 分

其他 Arbiter 整合