| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 10 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Analyzes incoming prompts using fast, pattern-based keyword and rule matching to detect common prompt injection attack signatures before they reach the LLM. Operates as the first defense layer in the multi-layered strategy, using configurable thresholds to flag suspicious patterns like instruction overrides, role-play attempts, and known attack keywords. Executes synchronously with minimal latency overhead.
Unique: Implements a configurable strategy pattern for heuristic tactics, allowing developers to enable/disable specific rules and adjust thresholds per deployment without code changes, rather than using fixed rule sets like most competitors
vs alternatives: Faster than LLM-based detection (sub-millisecond vs 100-500ms) and requires no API calls, making it suitable for high-throughput applications where latency is critical
Delegates prompt analysis to a dedicated language model that evaluates semantic intent and malicious patterns beyond simple keyword matching. The LLM tactic accepts user input and returns a detection score based on the model's understanding of attack intent, allowing detection of sophisticated, paraphrased, or novel injection attempts. Integrates with configurable LLM backends (OpenAI, Anthropic, local models) and caches results to reduce API costs.
Unique: Abstracts LLM backend selection through a pluggable interface, allowing users to swap between OpenAI, Anthropic, or self-hosted models without code changes, and includes built-in result caching to reduce API costs for repeated inputs
vs alternatives: Detects semantic intent-based attacks that keyword filters miss, but trades latency and cost for accuracy; more flexible than fixed-model competitors by supporting multiple LLM backends
Automatically captures new attack patterns when canary tokens are leaked in LLM responses and stores them in the vector database for future detection. When isCanaryWordLeaked() detects a leak, the system extracts the leaked prompt, generates embeddings, and adds it to the vector database with metadata about the attack (timestamp, user, LLM model). Over time, the vector database grows with real-world attack examples, improving detection accuracy without manual threat intelligence curation.
Unique: Implements automatic attack pattern capture from canary token leaks, creating a feedback loop where successful attacks are immediately added to the vector database for future detection; unique among competitors in treating incident response as training data generation
vs alternatives: Enables continuous improvement of detection without manual threat intelligence curation; more adaptive than static rule-based systems that require manual updates for each new attack variant
Supports multiple deployment models including cloud-hosted (Netlify), Docker containerization, and self-hosted on-premise installations. Configuration is managed through environment variables for API keys, database connections, and detection thresholds, enabling different configurations per environment (dev, staging, production) without code changes. Includes Docker Compose templates for quick self-hosted setup with all dependencies (vector database, LLM backend).
Unique: Provides both cloud-hosted and self-hosted deployment options with environment-based configuration, enabling organizations to choose deployment model based on compliance requirements; includes Docker Compose templates for rapid self-hosted setup
vs alternatives: More flexible than SaaS-only competitors by supporting on-premise deployment; environment-based configuration enables multi-environment deployments without code changes
Returns detailed explanations for each detection decision, including per-tactic scores, matched patterns, and reasoning from the LLM-based detector. When a prompt is flagged, developers can see which tactics triggered (heuristic keywords matched, vector similarity score, LLM confidence), enabling debugging and tuning of detection rules. Scores are normalized to 0-1 range for comparison across tactics with different scoring schemes.
Unique: Provides per-tactic score breakdown and matched pattern details, enabling developers to understand which detection layers triggered and why; LLM-based detector includes semantic reasoning for transparency
vs alternatives: More transparent than black-box detection systems; detailed explanations enable faster tuning of detection rules and easier debugging of false positives
Stores embeddings of previously detected or known prompt injection attacks in a vector database and compares incoming prompts against this corpus using cosine similarity or other distance metrics. When a new prompt is submitted, it's embedded and compared to the attack vector store; if similarity exceeds a configurable threshold, the input is flagged. This layer learns from past incidents and enables cross-organization threat intelligence sharing.
Unique: Implements a pluggable vector database abstraction that supports multiple backends (Pinecone, Weaviate, Milvus) and embedding providers, enabling organizations to choose infrastructure based on compliance and cost requirements, rather than being locked to a single vendor
vs alternatives: Provides institutional memory of attacks that heuristic and LLM-based detection lack, enabling detection of attack variations without retraining; more scalable than storing attack examples in code or configuration
Inserts randomly generated, unique canary words into system prompts as invisible markers, then monitors LLM outputs to detect whether the model has leaked its instructions. When a canary word appears in the model's response, it indicates the model has exposed its system prompt or instructions to the user. This mechanism detects successful prompt injection attacks even if earlier layers missed them, and enables logging of new attack patterns to the vector database for future detection.
Unique: Generates cryptographically random canary words per request and stores them in-memory during the detection session, preventing attackers from discovering patterns; integrates with vector database to automatically log leaked prompts as new attack examples for continuous learning
vs alternatives: Provides a second line of defense that catches attacks missed by earlier layers and enables active learning; unique among competitors in treating canary leaks as training data for the vector database
Organizes all detection tactics (heuristic, LLM-based, vector database, canary tokens) using the strategy design pattern, allowing developers to enable/disable specific tactics, adjust per-tactic thresholds, and compose custom detection pipelines without modifying core code. Each tactic is a pluggable strategy with a standard interface, and the SDK initializes with a sensible default strategy that includes all three main tactics. Configuration is applied at SDK initialization and can be overridden per-request.
Unique: Implements strategy pattern with per-tactic threshold configuration and enable/disable flags, allowing fine-grained control over detection behavior without code changes; default strategy includes all tactics but developers can compose minimal pipelines for latency-sensitive applications
vs alternatives: More flexible than monolithic detection systems that run all checks unconditionally; enables cost optimization by disabling expensive tactics in low-risk scenarios while maintaining security in high-risk paths
+5 more capabilities
Aggregates 67 TB of source code from the Software Heritage archive, filtering for permissively licensed repositories (MIT, Apache 2.0, BSD, etc.) across 600+ programming languages. Uses automated license detection and validation to ensure legal compliance for model training. Implements a rigorous deduplication pipeline at file and repository levels to eliminate redundant training data and reduce dataset bloat.
Unique: Largest open-source code dataset at 67 TB with automated opt-out governance allowing repository owners to request removal, combined with rigorous deduplication and PII removal pipeline — no other public dataset offers this scale with legal compliance and community control mechanisms
vs alternatives: Larger and more legally compliant than GitHub's CodeSearchNet (14M files) or Google's BigQuery public datasets, with explicit opt-out governance vs. implicit inclusion, and covers 600+ languages vs. Codex training data's undisclosed language distribution
Implements a community-driven opt-out system where repository owners can request removal of their code from the dataset without legal takedown notices. Maintains a registry of excluded repositories and re-applies exclusions during dataset updates. Provides transparent governance documentation and a clear submission process for removal requests, balancing open access with creator rights.
Unique: First large-scale code dataset to implement opt-out governance at dataset level rather than relying solely on license compliance, with transparent registry and community submission process — shifts power from dataset creators to code contributors
vs alternatives: More respectful of creator autonomy than GitHub Copilot's training approach (no opt-out) or academic datasets (one-time snapshot), and more scalable than individual DMCA takedowns
The Stack v2 scores higher at 61/100 vs Rebuff at 58/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Automated pipeline that scans source code for personally identifiable information (email addresses, API keys, SSH keys, credit card patterns, phone numbers) and removes or redacts them before dataset release. Uses regex patterns, entropy-based detection for secrets, and heuristic rules to identify sensitive data. Operates at file level with configurable sensitivity thresholds to balance data utility against privacy risk.
Unique: Combines regex pattern matching, entropy-based secret detection, and heuristic rules in a unified pipeline with configurable sensitivity — more comprehensive than simple regex-only approaches, but trades off false positive rate against security coverage
vs alternatives: More thorough than GitHub's secret scanning (which only flags known patterns) because it includes entropy-based detection for unknown secret formats, but less accurate than specialized tools like TruffleHog due to language-agnostic approach
Indexes 67 TB of source code across 600+ programming languages with language-aware metadata (syntax, file extension, language family). Enables retrieval by language, license, repository, or code patterns. Uses Software Heritage's existing indexing infrastructure as foundation, augmented with language detection and classification. Supports both bulk download and filtered queries for specific language subsets.
Unique: Leverages Software Heritage's existing language detection and indexing infrastructure, then augments with BigCode-specific language classification and filtering — avoids reinventing language detection while providing dataset-specific query capabilities
vs alternatives: More comprehensive language coverage (600+ languages) than GitHub's Linguist (500+ languages) and more accessible than Software Heritage's raw API because it's pre-filtered for permissive licenses and deduplicated
Removes duplicate code files and repositories using content hashing (SHA-256 or similar) and fuzzy matching for near-duplicates. Operates in two stages: exact deduplication via hash matching, then fuzzy matching (e.g., Jaccard similarity or MinHash) to catch semantically identical code with minor formatting differences. Preserves one canonical copy of each unique code pattern while removing redundant training examples.
Unique: Two-stage deduplication combining exact hash matching with fuzzy similarity matching (likely MinHash or Jaccard) to catch both identical and near-identical code — more thorough than single-stage approaches but computationally expensive
vs alternatives: More aggressive deduplication than CodeSearchNet (which uses simple hash matching) because it catches near-duplicates, but less semantic than clone detection tools (which understand code structure) because it's content-based
Integrates with Software Heritage's comprehensive archive of 200+ million repositories and their full version control history. Extracts source code snapshots from Software Heritage's Git/Mercurial/SVN repositories, preserving repository metadata (commit history, author info, timestamps). Provides access to code at specific points in time, enabling historical analysis or training on code evolution patterns.
Unique: Leverages Software Heritage's universal code archive (200M+ repositories) as data source, providing access to code that would be impossible to collect via GitHub API alone — enables training on archived/deleted repositories and non-GitHub platforms (GitLab, Gitea, etc.)
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than GitHub-only datasets because it includes code from GitLab, Gitea, SourceForge, and other platforms archived by Software Heritage; more legally defensible than web scraping because it uses an established, community-maintained archive
Tracks and validates SPDX license identifiers for each repository, ensuring only permissively licensed code (MIT, Apache 2.0, BSD, etc.) is included. Maintains license metadata alongside code files, enabling downstream users to verify legal compliance. Implements license hierarchy and compatibility checking to handle dual-licensed or complex licensing scenarios.
Unique: Combines automated SPDX detection with manual review and maintains license metadata alongside code, enabling downstream users to verify compliance — more transparent than datasets that simply claim 'permissive licenses' without proof
vs alternatives: More legally rigorous than GitHub's CodeSearchNet (which doesn't validate licenses) and more transparent than Codex training data (which doesn't disclose license filtering at all)
Maintains versioned snapshots of the dataset (e.g., v2.0, v2.1) with documented changes between versions (new repositories added, deduplication improvements, PII removal updates). Provides checksums and manifests for reproducibility, enabling researchers to cite specific dataset versions and reproduce results. Tracks dataset lineage and transformation history.
Unique: Maintains semantic versioning and detailed changelogs for dataset releases, enabling researchers to cite specific versions and understand dataset evolution — more rigorous than one-off dataset releases without versioning
vs alternatives: More reproducible than academic datasets that are released once without versioning, and more transparent than commercial datasets (Codex) that don't disclose version history or changes
+2 more capabilities