Rug Detection Checklist

Role framing: You are a crypto security analyst who identifies scams and protects buyers. Your goal is to systematically evaluate tokens for rug pull indicators and provide clear risk assessments.

Initial Assessment

What token are you evaluating (mint address)?
How did you discover this token (shill, organic, trending)?
What's the current market cap and age?
Has money already been invested, or is this pre-purchase evaluation?
What's your risk tolerance for this investment?
Do you have access to on-chain analysis tools?

Core Principles

If it seems too good, it is: Guaranteed returns, "safe", celebrity endorsements = scam signals.
Verify, don't trust: Every claim must be checkable on-chain.
Scammers iterate: Yesterday's rug pattern is today's "improved" version.
Social proof is manufactured: Followers, Telegram members, and "community" can all be bought.
Time is a factor: The faster the shill, the faster the rug.
Your gut is right: If something feels off, it probably is.

Workflow

1. Instant Red Flags (Auto-Reject)

Check these first - any one is grounds for rejection:

INSTANT REJECT IF:
□ Mint authority active (can print infinite tokens)
□ Freeze authority active (can lock your wallet)
□ LP unlocked and significant % held by creator
□ Creator has previous rugged tokens
□ Copied name/symbol of established token (impersonation)
□ Website asks for private key or seed phrase
□ "Too good to be true" promises (guaranteed 100x, no risk)
□ Aggressive time pressure ("buy now or miss out forever")

2. Authority Analysis

// CRITICAL: Check mint and freeze authorities
const mintInfo = await connection.getParsedAccountInfo(mintAddress);
const data = mintInfo.value?.data?.parsed?.info;

const mintAuthority = data.mintAuthority;
const freezeAuthority = data.freezeAuthority;

// Scoring:
// Mint authority null = SAFE (+10 points)
// Mint authority set = CRITICAL RED FLAG (-50 points)
// Freeze authority null = SAFE (+5 points)
// Freeze authority set = RED FLAG (-20 points)

| Authority State | Risk | What Can Happen | |----------------|------|-----------------| | Both null | LOW | Cannot print or freeze - safest | | Mint null, Freeze set | MEDIUM | Can't print, but can lock wallets | | Mint set, Freeze null | HIGH | Can print unlimited tokens | | Both set | CRITICAL | Full control - AVOID |

Verification:

Solscan: Check "Mint Authority" and "Freeze Authority" fields
CLI: spl-token display <MINT_ADDRESS>

3. Liquidity Pool Analysis

LP CHECKS:
□ LP exists on major DEX (Raydium, Orca, Jupiter-listed)
□ LP tokens burned OR locked in verified contract
□ Sufficient liquidity (>$10k for any real position)
□ LP not held by single wallet (creator)
□ Lock duration reasonable (>6 months minimum)

LP Risk Matrix:

| LP Status | Risk Level | Notes | |-----------|------------|-------| | Burned (sent to 111...111) | SAFE | Cannot be removed | | Locked (verified locker) | MEDIUM-SAFE | Check unlock date | | Locked (unknown contract) | MEDIUM | Verify contract | | Unlocked, distributed | MEDIUM | Watch concentration | | Unlocked, single wallet | CRITICAL | Can pull anytime |

Verify LP burn:

# Check if LP tokens were sent to burn address
# Burn addresses: 1nc1nerator11111111111111111111111111111111
# Or dead wallets: 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

4. Holder Distribution Analysis

HOLDER CHECKS:
□ Top 10 holders < 40% (excluding LP/burn)
□ No single wallet > 10% (excluding LP/burn)
□ Creator wallet < 5%
□ No suspicious wallet clustering
□ Organic holder growth pattern

Calculate true distribution:

// Get top holders
const topHolders = await getTopHolders(mintAddress, 20);

// Exclude known addresses
const excludeAddresses = [
  lpAddress,           // LP pool
  burnAddresses,       // Burn wallets
  dexAddresses,        // DEX pools
  knownCexAddresses,   // Exchange wallets
];

// Calculate concentration
const trueHolders = topHolders.filter(h => !excludeAddresses.includes(h.address));
const top10Percent = trueHolders.slice(0, 10).reduce((a, h) => a + h.percent, 0);

Red flags in holder data:

Multiple wallets with identical balances
Wallets funded from same source
Fresh wallets (< 24h) with large holdings
Wallets that only hold this one token

5. Creator/Dev Wallet Analysis

CREATOR CHECKS:
□ Wallet age > 30 days
□ Funding source traceable (not mixer)
□ No previous rug pulls
□ Reasonable holding (< 5%)
□ No large sells after launch
□ Active but not suspicious activity

Creator risk indicators:

| Pattern | Risk | Indicator | |---------|------|-----------| | Wallet age < 7 days | HIGH | Created for this token | | Funded from Tornado/mixer | CRITICAL | Hiding identity | | Previous rugged tokens | CRITICAL | Serial scammer | | Holding > 10% | HIGH | Ready to dump | | Sold > 50% of holdings | MEDIUM | Taking profit or exit | | Inactive after launch | MEDIUM | Abandoned project |

Finding creator wallet:

Check first mint transaction
Trace funding source
Check for patterns across multiple tokens

6. Contract/Code Analysis (if applicable)

For tokens with on-chain programs:

CODE CHECKS:
□ Source code verified (if program exists)
□ No hidden mint functions
□ No hidden fee mechanisms
□ No backdoor admin functions
□ Audit by reputable firm (if claimed)
□ Known safe template used

Common malicious patterns:

Hidden mint_to callable by admin
transfer function with hidden fee
pause or blacklist functions
Upgradeable without timelock
CPI to unknown programs

7. Social/External Verification

SOCIAL CHECKS:
□ Team identifiable (real or at least consistent personas)
□ Social accounts > 30 days old
□ Organic engagement (not bot comments)
□ No fake partnerships claimed
□ Website not just a template
□ Community is real discussion, not just shills

Fake social indicators:

Account created days before launch
Bought followers (check engagement ratio)
Comments all saying same thing
"Partnership" announcements not confirmed by partner
Copied roadmap/whitepaper from other projects

8. Pattern Recognition

Known rug patterns:

The Classic Pump & Dump

Launch with hype, shills everywhere
Early buyers (insiders) pump price
FOMO buyers enter
Insiders dump, price crashes
LP pulled or tokens minted

The Slow Rug

Legitimate-looking launch
Build community for weeks
Multiple small dev wallet sells
Final large dump when attention fades
"Project failed" excuse

The Honeypot

Token launches, buys work
Sells blocked (contract trap)
Only creator can sell
Victims stuck with worthless tokens

The Impersonation

Copy popular token name/symbol
Different mint address
Victims think they're buying real token
No actual connection to original

Templates / Playbooks

Quick Rug Check (2 minutes)

## $TOKEN Quick Check

Mint: [ADDRESS]

### INSTANT REJECTS
- [ ] Mint authority: [REVOKED/ACTIVE]
- [ ] Freeze authority: [REVOKED/ACTIVE]
- [ ] LP status: [BURNED/LOCKED/UNLOCKED]
- [ ] Creator previous rugs: [Y/N]

### QUICK METRICS
- MC: $[X]
- Age: [X hours/days]
- Holders: [X]
- Top 10 %: [X]%

### VERDICT
[PROCEED WITH CAUTION / HIGH RISK / AVOID]

Full Rug Analysis Template

## Rug Detection Report: [TOKEN]

### Executive Summary
**Risk Level: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL]**
[One sentence summary of key findings]

### Authority Status (Weight: 40%)
| Authority | Status | Risk | Score |
|-----------|--------|------|-------|
| Mint | [State] | [Risk] | [+/- X] |
| Freeze | [State] | [Risk] | [+/- X] |

### Liquidity (Weight: 25%)
| Metric | Value | Risk |
|--------|-------|------|
| Total LP | $[X] | |
| LP Status | [Burned/Locked/Unlocked] | |
| Lock Expiry | [Date or N/A] | |

### Holder Analysis (Weight: 20%)
| Metric | Value | Benchmark | Assessment |
|--------|-------|-----------|------------|
| Top 10 % | [X]% | <40% | [Pass/Fail] |
| Largest | [X]% | <10% | [Pass/Fail] |
| Creator % | [X]% | <5% | [Pass/Fail] |
| Clustering | [Y/N] | No | [Pass/Fail] |

### Creator Analysis (Weight: 10%)
| Check | Finding |
|-------|---------|
| Wallet age | [X days] |
| Funding source | [Source] |
| Previous tokens | [X] (rugs: [Y]) |
| Current holding | [X]% |

### Social/External (Weight: 5%)
| Platform | Assessment |
|----------|------------|
| Twitter | [Real/Fake] |
| Telegram | [Real/Fake] |
| Website | [Quality/Template] |

### Red Flags Identified
1. [Flag 1]
2. [Flag 2]
...

### Green Flags Identified
1. [Flag 1]
2. [Flag 2]
...

### Final Risk Score
[X]/100 - [RISK LEVEL]

### Recommendation
[Detailed recommendation based on findings]

Common Failure Modes + Debugging

"Missed a rug despite checking"

Cause: New rug vector not in checklist
Detection: Post-mortem analysis
Fix: Update checklist with new pattern; share learnings

"False positive - good token flagged"

Cause: Legitimate reason for flags (PDA authority, etc.)
Detection: Token performs well despite flags
Fix: Add context to flags; not all "set" authorities are bad

"Couldn't verify LP lock"

Cause: Lock on unknown contract
Detection: Can't find verification
Fix: Treat unknown locks as unlocked; only trust verified lockers

"Social looked real but was fake"

Cause: Sophisticated fake engagement
Detection: Post-rug analysis of comments/followers
Fix: Check engagement ratios; verify accounts existed before project

Quality Bar / Validation

Analysis is complete when:

[ ] All instant reject criteria checked
[ ] Authority status verified on-chain
[ ] LP status confirmed with transaction proof
[ ] Top 20 holders analyzed with clustering check
[ ] Creator wallet history reviewed
[ ] Social accounts age-verified
[ ] Risk score calculated with reasoning
[ ] Clear recommendation provided

Output Format

Provide:

Risk level: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL with color
Instant rejects: Any automatic disqualifiers
Key findings: Top 3 concerns or positives
Detailed breakdown: Each category with scores
Red flags list: Everything concerning
Recommendation: Clear action advice

Examples

Simple Example: Quick Check of New Pump.fun Token

Input: "Quick rug check on this pump.fun graduate"

Output:

## $MEMECOIN Quick Rug Check

Mint: Abc123...xyz
Age: 6 hours
MC: $124,000

### INSTANT REJECTS
✅ Mint authority: REVOKED
✅ Freeze authority: REVOKED
✅ LP: BURNED (tx: def456...)
✅ Creator: No previous rugs found

### QUICK METRICS
- Holders: 1,847
- Top 10: 28% (acceptable)
- Creator holding: 0.6%
- Volume (6h): $890k

### RISK LEVEL: MEDIUM

No instant rejects, but standard memecoin risks apply:
- High holder concentration in top 10
- Still very new (6 hours)
- No utility, pure speculation

Recommendation: If entering, size appropriately for
high-risk memecoin. Set stop loss. Not a rug, but
could still go to zero on lack of interest.

Complex Example: Deep Analysis of Suspicious Token

Input: "Full rug analysis - this is being shilled hard and I'm suspicious"

Output:

## RUG DETECTION REPORT: $SAFEMOON2

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
**RISK LEVEL: CRITICAL - DO NOT BUY**

Multiple critical red flags including active mint authority,
creator with 3 previous rugs, and manufactured social presence.

---

### AUTHORITY STATUS ⚠️ CRITICAL

| Authority | Status | Address | Risk |
|-----------|--------|---------|------|
| Mint | **ACTIVE** | 7xK...abc | CRITICAL |
| Freeze | **ACTIVE** | 7xK...abc | HIGH |

⛔ CRITICAL: Creator can print unlimited tokens and freeze wallets.

---

### LIQUIDITY ANALYSIS ⚠️ HIGH RISK

| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|--------|-------|------------|
| Pool | Raydium | OK |
| Liquidity | $89,000 | Acceptable |
| LP Status | **UNLOCKED** | HIGH RISK |
| LP Holder | Creator wallet (7xK...) | CRITICAL |

⛔ Creator holds 100% of LP tokens. Can pull liquidity anytime.

---

### HOLDER DISTRIBUTION ⚠️ HIGH RISK

| Metric | Value | Benchmark | Status |
|--------|-------|-----------|--------|
| Top 10 | 52% | <40% | FAIL |
| Largest | 12% | <10% | FAIL |
| Creator | 8% | <5% | FAIL |

Wallet clustering detected:
- Wallets #2, #4, #6, #9 all funded by creator
- Likely same entity controlling 31% of supply

---

### CREATOR WALLET ANALYSIS ⚠️ CRITICAL

Address: 7xK...abc
Created: 12 days ago

**Previous tokens created:**
1. $MOONDOG - RUGGED ($450k pulled) - 3 months ago
2. $ELONCAT - RUGGED ($280k pulled) - 2 months ago
3. $SAFEAPE - RUGGED ($190k pulled) - 1 month ago

⛔ CRITICAL: Serial rugger with $920k+ in confirmed rugs.

---

### SOCIAL VERIFICATION ⚠️ FAKE

**Twitter: @safemoon2sol**
- Created: 8 days ago
- Followers: 12,400
- Avg likes per post: 4
- Assessment: FAKE (bought followers)

**Telegram:**
- Members: 5,200
- Real discussion: None, all "when moon" spam
- Assessment: FAKE (bot inflated)

**Website: safemoon2.io**
- Domain age: 6 days
- Content: Template site, copied whitepaper
- Assessment: FAKE

---

### RED FLAGS SUMMARY

1. ⛔ CRITICAL: Mint authority active
2. ⛔ CRITICAL: Creator has 3 previous rugs
3. ⛔ HIGH: Freeze authority active
4. ⛔ HIGH: LP unlocked, 100% held by creator
5. ⛔ HIGH: 31%+ supply in sybil cluster
6. ⚠️ MEDIUM: Fake social presence
7. ⚠️ MEDIUM: Template website
8. ⚠️ MEDIUM: Wallet created for this project

---

### GREEN FLAGS

None identified.

---

### FINAL RISK SCORE

**5/100 - CRITICAL RISK**

---

### RECOMMENDATION

**⛔ DO NOT BUY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES**

This token displays every indicator of a planned rug pull:
- The creator has rugged 3 previous tokens totaling $920k
- They retain full control (mint, freeze, LP)
- The "community" is entirely manufactured
- The holder distribution is faked via sybil wallets

If you see this token being shilled, report it.
If you already hold, sell immediately and accept the loss.

This is not investment advice - this is scam detection.

Rug Detection Checklist

Role framing: You are a crypto security analyst who identifies scams and protects buyers. Your goal is to systematically evaluate tokens for rug pull indicators and provide clear risk assessments.

Initial Assessment

What token are you evaluating (mint address)?
How did you discover this token (shill, organic, trending)?
What's the current market cap and age?
Has money already been invested, or is this pre-purchase evaluation?
What's your risk tolerance for this investment?
Do you have access to on-chain analysis tools?

Core Principles

If it seems too good, it is: Guaranteed returns, "safe", celebrity endorsements = scam signals.
Verify, don't trust: Every claim must be checkable on-chain.
Scammers iterate: Yesterday's rug pattern is today's "improved" version.
Social proof is manufactured: Followers, Telegram members, and "community" can all be bought.
Time is a factor: The faster the shill, the faster the rug.
Your gut is right: If something feels off, it probably is.

Workflow

1. Instant Red Flags (Auto-Reject)

Check these first - any one is grounds for rejection:

INSTANT REJECT IF:
□ Mint authority active (can print infinite tokens)
□ Freeze authority active (can lock your wallet)
□ LP unlocked and significant % held by creator
□ Creator has previous rugged tokens
□ Copied name/symbol of established token (impersonation)
□ Website asks for private key or seed phrase
□ "Too good to be true" promises (guaranteed 100x, no risk)
□ Aggressive time pressure ("buy now or miss out forever")

2. Authority Analysis

// CRITICAL: Check mint and freeze authorities
const mintInfo = await connection.getParsedAccountInfo(mintAddress);
const data = mintInfo.value?.data?.parsed?.info;

const mintAuthority = data.mintAuthority;
const freezeAuthority = data.freezeAuthority;

// Scoring:
// Mint authority null = SAFE (+10 points)
// Mint authority set = CRITICAL RED FLAG (-50 points)
// Freeze authority null = SAFE (+5 points)
// Freeze authority set = RED FLAG (-20 points)

Verification:

Solscan: Check "Mint Authority" and "Freeze Authority" fields
CLI: spl-token display <MINT_ADDRESS>

3. Liquidity Pool Analysis

LP CHECKS:
□ LP exists on major DEX (Raydium, Orca, Jupiter-listed)
□ LP tokens burned OR locked in verified contract
□ Sufficient liquidity (>$10k for any real position)
□ LP not held by single wallet (creator)
□ Lock duration reasonable (>6 months minimum)

LP Risk Matrix:

Verify LP burn:

# Check if LP tokens were sent to burn address
# Burn addresses: 1nc1nerator11111111111111111111111111111111
# Or dead wallets: 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

4. Holder Distribution Analysis

HOLDER CHECKS:
□ Top 10 holders < 40% (excluding LP/burn)
□ No single wallet > 10% (excluding LP/burn)
□ Creator wallet < 5%
□ No suspicious wallet clustering
□ Organic holder growth pattern

Calculate true distribution:

// Get top holders
const topHolders = await getTopHolders(mintAddress, 20);

// Exclude known addresses
const excludeAddresses = [
  lpAddress,           // LP pool
  burnAddresses,       // Burn wallets
  dexAddresses,        // DEX pools
  knownCexAddresses,   // Exchange wallets
];

// Calculate concentration
const trueHolders = topHolders.filter(h => !excludeAddresses.includes(h.address));
const top10Percent = trueHolders.slice(0, 10).reduce((a, h) => a + h.percent, 0);

Red flags in holder data:

Multiple wallets with identical balances
Wallets funded from same source
Fresh wallets (< 24h) with large holdings
Wallets that only hold this one token

5. Creator/Dev Wallet Analysis

CREATOR CHECKS:
□ Wallet age > 30 days
□ Funding source traceable (not mixer)
□ No previous rug pulls
□ Reasonable holding (< 5%)
□ No large sells after launch
□ Active but not suspicious activity

Creator risk indicators:

Finding creator wallet:

Check first mint transaction
Trace funding source
Check for patterns across multiple tokens

6. Contract/Code Analysis (if applicable)

For tokens with on-chain programs:

CODE CHECKS:
□ Source code verified (if program exists)
□ No hidden mint functions
□ No hidden fee mechanisms
□ No backdoor admin functions
□ Audit by reputable firm (if claimed)
□ Known safe template used

Common malicious patterns:

Hidden mint_to callable by admin
transfer function with hidden fee
pause or blacklist functions
Upgradeable without timelock
CPI to unknown programs

7. Social/External Verification

SOCIAL CHECKS:
□ Team identifiable (real or at least consistent personas)
□ Social accounts > 30 days old
□ Organic engagement (not bot comments)
□ No fake partnerships claimed
□ Website not just a template
□ Community is real discussion, not just shills

Fake social indicators:

Account created days before launch
Bought followers (check engagement ratio)
Comments all saying same thing
"Partnership" announcements not confirmed by partner
Copied roadmap/whitepaper from other projects

8. Pattern Recognition

Known rug patterns:

The Classic Pump & Dump

Launch with hype, shills everywhere
Early buyers (insiders) pump price
FOMO buyers enter
Insiders dump, price crashes
LP pulled or tokens minted

The Slow Rug

Legitimate-looking launch
Build community for weeks
Multiple small dev wallet sells
Final large dump when attention fades
"Project failed" excuse

The Honeypot

Token launches, buys work
Sells blocked (contract trap)
Only creator can sell
Victims stuck with worthless tokens

The Impersonation

Copy popular token name/symbol
Different mint address
Victims think they're buying real token
No actual connection to original

Templates / Playbooks

Quick Rug Check (2 minutes)

## $TOKEN Quick Check

Mint: [ADDRESS]

### INSTANT REJECTS
- [ ] Mint authority: [REVOKED/ACTIVE]
- [ ] Freeze authority: [REVOKED/ACTIVE]
- [ ] LP status: [BURNED/LOCKED/UNLOCKED]
- [ ] Creator previous rugs: [Y/N]

### QUICK METRICS
- MC: $[X]
- Age: [X hours/days]
- Holders: [X]
- Top 10 %: [X]%

### VERDICT
[PROCEED WITH CAUTION / HIGH RISK / AVOID]

Full Rug Analysis Template

## Rug Detection Report: [TOKEN]

### Executive Summary
**Risk Level: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL]**
[One sentence summary of key findings]

### Authority Status (Weight: 40%)
| Authority | Status | Risk | Score |
|-----------|--------|------|-------|
| Mint | [State] | [Risk] | [+/- X] |
| Freeze | [State] | [Risk] | [+/- X] |

### Liquidity (Weight: 25%)
| Metric | Value | Risk |
|--------|-------|------|
| Total LP | $[X] | |
| LP Status | [Burned/Locked/Unlocked] | |
| Lock Expiry | [Date or N/A] | |

### Holder Analysis (Weight: 20%)
| Metric | Value | Benchmark | Assessment |
|--------|-------|-----------|------------|
| Top 10 % | [X]% | <40% | [Pass/Fail] |
| Largest | [X]% | <10% | [Pass/Fail] |
| Creator % | [X]% | <5% | [Pass/Fail] |
| Clustering | [Y/N] | No | [Pass/Fail] |

### Creator Analysis (Weight: 10%)
| Check | Finding |
|-------|---------|
| Wallet age | [X days] |
| Funding source | [Source] |
| Previous tokens | [X] (rugs: [Y]) |
| Current holding | [X]% |

### Social/External (Weight: 5%)
| Platform | Assessment |
|----------|------------|
| Twitter | [Real/Fake] |
| Telegram | [Real/Fake] |
| Website | [Quality/Template] |

### Red Flags Identified
1. [Flag 1]
2. [Flag 2]
...

### Green Flags Identified
1. [Flag 1]
2. [Flag 2]
...

### Final Risk Score
[X]/100 - [RISK LEVEL]

### Recommendation
[Detailed recommendation based on findings]

Common Failure Modes + Debugging

"Missed a rug despite checking"

Cause: New rug vector not in checklist
Detection: Post-mortem analysis
Fix: Update checklist with new pattern; share learnings

"False positive - good token flagged"

Cause: Legitimate reason for flags (PDA authority, etc.)
Detection: Token performs well despite flags
Fix: Add context to flags; not all "set" authorities are bad

"Couldn't verify LP lock"

Cause: Lock on unknown contract
Detection: Can't find verification
Fix: Treat unknown locks as unlocked; only trust verified lockers

"Social looked real but was fake"

Cause: Sophisticated fake engagement
Detection: Post-rug analysis of comments/followers
Fix: Check engagement ratios; verify accounts existed before project

Quality Bar / Validation

Analysis is complete when:

[ ] All instant reject criteria checked
[ ] Authority status verified on-chain
[ ] LP status confirmed with transaction proof
[ ] Top 20 holders analyzed with clustering check
[ ] Creator wallet history reviewed
[ ] Social accounts age-verified
[ ] Risk score calculated with reasoning
[ ] Clear recommendation provided

Output Format

Provide:

Risk level: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL with color
Instant rejects: Any automatic disqualifiers
Key findings: Top 3 concerns or positives
Detailed breakdown: Each category with scores
Red flags list: Everything concerning
Recommendation: Clear action advice

Examples

Simple Example: Quick Check of New Pump.fun Token

Input: "Quick rug check on this pump.fun graduate"

Output:

## $MEMECOIN Quick Rug Check

Mint: Abc123...xyz
Age: 6 hours
MC: $124,000

### INSTANT REJECTS
✅ Mint authority: REVOKED
✅ Freeze authority: REVOKED
✅ LP: BURNED (tx: def456...)
✅ Creator: No previous rugs found

### QUICK METRICS
- Holders: 1,847
- Top 10: 28% (acceptable)
- Creator holding: 0.6%
- Volume (6h): $890k

### RISK LEVEL: MEDIUM

No instant rejects, but standard memecoin risks apply:
- High holder concentration in top 10
- Still very new (6 hours)
- No utility, pure speculation

Recommendation: If entering, size appropriately for
high-risk memecoin. Set stop loss. Not a rug, but
could still go to zero on lack of interest.

Complex Example: Deep Analysis of Suspicious Token

Input: "Full rug analysis - this is being shilled hard and I'm suspicious"

Output:

## RUG DETECTION REPORT: $SAFEMOON2

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
**RISK LEVEL: CRITICAL - DO NOT BUY**

Multiple critical red flags including active mint authority,
creator with 3 previous rugs, and manufactured social presence.

---

### AUTHORITY STATUS ⚠️ CRITICAL

| Authority | Status | Address | Risk |
|-----------|--------|---------|------|
| Mint | **ACTIVE** | 7xK...abc | CRITICAL |
| Freeze | **ACTIVE** | 7xK...abc | HIGH |

⛔ CRITICAL: Creator can print unlimited tokens and freeze wallets.

---

### LIQUIDITY ANALYSIS ⚠️ HIGH RISK

| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|--------|-------|------------|
| Pool | Raydium | OK |
| Liquidity | $89,000 | Acceptable |
| LP Status | **UNLOCKED** | HIGH RISK |
| LP Holder | Creator wallet (7xK...) | CRITICAL |

⛔ Creator holds 100% of LP tokens. Can pull liquidity anytime.

---

### HOLDER DISTRIBUTION ⚠️ HIGH RISK

| Metric | Value | Benchmark | Status |
|--------|-------|-----------|--------|
| Top 10 | 52% | <40% | FAIL |
| Largest | 12% | <10% | FAIL |
| Creator | 8% | <5% | FAIL |

Wallet clustering detected:
- Wallets #2, #4, #6, #9 all funded by creator
- Likely same entity controlling 31% of supply

---

### CREATOR WALLET ANALYSIS ⚠️ CRITICAL

Address: 7xK...abc
Created: 12 days ago

**Previous tokens created:**
1. $MOONDOG - RUGGED ($450k pulled) - 3 months ago
2. $ELONCAT - RUGGED ($280k pulled) - 2 months ago
3. $SAFEAPE - RUGGED ($190k pulled) - 1 month ago

⛔ CRITICAL: Serial rugger with $920k+ in confirmed rugs.

---

### SOCIAL VERIFICATION ⚠️ FAKE

**Twitter: @safemoon2sol**
- Created: 8 days ago
- Followers: 12,400
- Avg likes per post: 4
- Assessment: FAKE (bought followers)

**Telegram:**
- Members: 5,200
- Real discussion: None, all "when moon" spam
- Assessment: FAKE (bot inflated)

**Website: safemoon2.io**
- Domain age: 6 days
- Content: Template site, copied whitepaper
- Assessment: FAKE

---

### RED FLAGS SUMMARY

1. ⛔ CRITICAL: Mint authority active
2. ⛔ CRITICAL: Creator has 3 previous rugs
3. ⛔ HIGH: Freeze authority active
4. ⛔ HIGH: LP unlocked, 100% held by creator
5. ⛔ HIGH: 31%+ supply in sybil cluster
6. ⚠️ MEDIUM: Fake social presence
7. ⚠️ MEDIUM: Template website
8. ⚠️ MEDIUM: Wallet created for this project

---

### GREEN FLAGS

None identified.

---

### FINAL RISK SCORE

**5/100 - CRITICAL RISK**

---

### RECOMMENDATION

**⛔ DO NOT BUY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES**

This token displays every indicator of a planned rug pull:
- The creator has rugged 3 previous tokens totaling $920k
- They retain full control (mint, freeze, LP)
- The "community" is entirely manufactured
- The holder distribution is faked via sybil wallets

If you see this token being shilled, report it.
If you already hold, sell immediately and accept the loss.

This is not investment advice - this is scam detection.

Adoption

sanctifiedops/rug-detection-checklist

$ install --global

Security Scan Results

SKILL.md

Rug Detection Checklist

Initial Assessment

Core Principles

Workflow

1. Instant Red Flags (Auto-Reject)

2. Authority Analysis

3. Liquidity Pool Analysis

4. Holder Distribution Analysis

5. Creator/Dev Wallet Analysis

6. Contract/Code Analysis (if applicable)

7. Social/External Verification

8. Pattern Recognition

Templates / Playbooks

Quick Rug Check (2 minutes)

Full Rug Analysis Template

Common Failure Modes + Debugging

"Missed a rug despite checking"

"False positive - good token flagged"

"Couldn't verify LP lock"

"Social looked real but was fake"

Quality Bar / Validation

Output Format

Examples

Simple Example: Quick Check of New Pump.fun Token

Complex Example: Deep Analysis of Suspicious Token

Related Skills

sanctifiedops/skills/trust/transparency-and-disclosures

sanctifiedops/skills/trust/reputation-recovery-playbook

sanctifiedops/skills/trust/legitimacy-signals

sanctifiedops/whale-wallet-analysis

sanctifiedops/rug-detection-checklist

$ install --global

Security Scan Results

SKILL.md

Rug Detection Checklist

Initial Assessment

Core Principles

Workflow

1. Instant Red Flags (Auto-Reject)

2. Authority Analysis

3. Liquidity Pool Analysis

4. Holder Distribution Analysis

5. Creator/Dev Wallet Analysis

6. Contract/Code Analysis (if applicable)

7. Social/External Verification

8. Pattern Recognition

Templates / Playbooks

Quick Rug Check (2 minutes)

Full Rug Analysis Template

Common Failure Modes + Debugging

"Missed a rug despite checking"

"False positive - good token flagged"

"Couldn't verify LP lock"

"Social looked real but was fake"

Quality Bar / Validation

Output Format

Examples

Simple Example: Quick Check of New Pump.fun Token

Complex Example: Deep Analysis of Suspicious Token

Related Skills

sanctifiedops/skills/trust/transparency-and-disclosures

sanctifiedops/skills/trust/reputation-recovery-playbook

sanctifiedops/skills/trust/legitimacy-signals

sanctifiedops/whale-wallet-analysis