| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 10 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Prompt Guard implements a lightweight transformer-based binary classifier that analyzes input text to detect prompt injection and jailbreak attempts before they reach the target LLM. The model uses a fine-tuned encoder architecture trained on adversarial prompt datasets to distinguish between benign user inputs and malicious injection patterns, operating as a preprocessing filter that can be deployed independently of the underlying LLM provider.
Unique: Part of Meta's Purple Llama project combining red-team (adversarial) and blue-team (defensive) approaches; trained on CyberSecEval v2+ benchmark datasets that include MITRE-mapped prompt injection attacks and visual prompt injection patterns, providing broader coverage than single-source training data
vs alternatives: Provides open-source, deployable-anywhere binary classification versus closed-source API-dependent solutions, with training grounded in comprehensive cybersecurity benchmarks rather than ad-hoc datasets
Prompt Guard extends injection detection across multiple languages by leveraging machine-translated versions of adversarial prompt datasets from the CyberSecEval benchmarks. The model processes non-English inputs through the same transformer encoder, enabling detection of injection attempts crafted in languages other than English without requiring separate language-specific models or retraining.
Unique: Leverages CyberSecEval's multilingual dataset (mitre_prompts_multilingual_machine_translated.json) to provide single-model multilingual detection rather than language-specific classifiers, reducing deployment complexity while acknowledging translation-based limitations
vs alternatives: Single unified model for multiple languages versus maintaining separate classifiers per language; trades off native-speaker accuracy for operational simplicity and consistency
Prompt Guard operates as a component within the broader LlamaFirewall security framework, which orchestrates multiple scanner modules (including Prompt Guard, Llama Guard for output filtering, and CodeShield for code-specific threats) into a coordinated defense pipeline. The architecture allows Prompt Guard to be deployed as the first-stage input filter, with results passed to downstream scanners for comprehensive threat assessment across the full LLM interaction lifecycle.
Unique: Designed as a modular component within LlamaFirewall's scanner architecture, enabling composition with Llama Guard (output filtering) and CodeShield (code threat detection) in a coordinated pipeline rather than standalone deployment
vs alternatives: Provides architectural integration with complementary safeguards versus point solutions that require custom orchestration; enables defense-in-depth but requires more setup than standalone classifiers
Prompt Guard's detection capabilities are grounded in and evaluated against the CyberSecEval benchmark suite, which includes MITRE-mapped prompt injection tests, visual prompt injection attacks, and adversarial patterns from multiple attack categories. The model's performance is measured against these standardized benchmarks, providing transparency into which attack types it can detect and which remain out-of-scope, enabling users to understand coverage gaps and make informed deployment decisions.
Unique: Trained and evaluated against CyberSecEval v2+ which includes MITRE-mapped attack categories, visual prompt injection, and autonomous offensive cyber operations — broader threat coverage than single-category injection detection benchmarks
vs alternatives: Provides transparent, reproducible evaluation against industry-standard benchmarks versus proprietary evaluation claims; enables users to understand specific attack coverage rather than generic 'accuracy' metrics
Prompt Guard is optimized as a lightweight model (~1B parameters) designed for real-time inference in request preprocessing pipelines, with minimal latency overhead added to LLM API calls. The model uses efficient transformer architecture patterns (likely distilled or pruned variants) to enable sub-100ms inference on standard hardware, allowing deployment as a synchronous preprocessing step without requiring asynchronous queuing or significant infrastructure investment.
Unique: Designed as a ~1B parameter model optimized for real-time inference in synchronous request pipelines, enabling deployment as a preprocessing step without asynchronous queuing or significant infrastructure overhead
vs alternatives: Faster inference than larger safeguard models (e.g., Llama Guard 2 at 7B parameters) enabling synchronous preprocessing; trades off potential accuracy gains from larger models for operational simplicity and latency
Prompt Guard outputs logits or confidence scores (in addition to binary classification) that can be thresholded to adjust the precision-recall tradeoff based on application requirements. Users can configure detection sensitivity to prioritize either false-positive reduction (higher threshold, fewer blocks) or false-negative reduction (lower threshold, more blocks), enabling tuning for specific threat models and user experience requirements without retraining.
Unique: Exposes confidence scores enabling threshold-based tuning without retraining, allowing users to calibrate detection sensitivity to their specific precision-recall requirements and threat model
vs alternatives: Provides post-hoc tuning capability versus fixed binary classifiers; enables operational flexibility but requires more sophisticated deployment infrastructure than simple true/false filtering
Prompt Guard includes comprehensive model card documentation (MODEL_CARD.md in repository) that specifies the threat model, training data sources, evaluation methodology, performance metrics, and known limitations. This documentation enables users to understand the model's design assumptions, evaluate its suitability for their use case, and make informed decisions about deployment and complementary safeguards.
Unique: Provides comprehensive model card grounded in Purple Llama's purple-team (red+blue) approach, documenting both adversarial attack patterns (red team) and defensive evaluation methodology (blue team)
vs alternatives: Open-source model card versus proprietary safeguards with minimal documentation; enables informed evaluation but requires users to interpret technical documentation
Prompt Guard is released as open-source with publicly available model weights and inference code, enabling users to download, inspect, and deploy the model in their own infrastructure without reliance on external APIs or vendor lock-in. The model can be deployed on-premises, in private cloud environments, or at the edge, with full control over data flow and inference infrastructure.
Unique: Open-source release with full model weights and inference code as part of Meta's Purple Llama project, enabling self-hosted deployment versus proprietary API-only safeguards
vs alternatives: Full transparency and control versus managed API services; requires more operational overhead but eliminates vendor lock-in and data transmission to external services
+1 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 Prompt Guard at 57/100.
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