Nice. But, Oh, Uh, please look at this URL: https://huggingface.co/api/spaces/Ark-kun/tangent-1/runtime. Since it says Flagged as abusive, that means the Space has been deliberately paused by Hugging Face-side systems, not just accidentally broken by the app. So I think repeatedly creating similar duplicates is risky. Details:
The important part is the runtime API, not the 503 page
The restart dialog shows a generic 503, but the runtime API gives the more specific state:
{
"stage": "PAUSED",
"hardware": {
"current": null,
"requested": "cpu-upgrade"
},
"gcTimeout": 300,
"errorMessage": "Flagged as abusive",
"replicas": {
"requested": 1
},
"devMode": false,
"domains": [
{
"domain": "ark-kun-tangent-1.hf.space",
"stage": "READY"
}
]
}
So I would treat this as:
Space state: PAUSED
Runtime message: Flagged as abusive
Likely owner of the next action: Hugging Face-side review
not as:
normal Python crash
normal Docker build failure
normal app_port mismatch
normal hardware allocation problem
This does not prove malicious intent. It also does not tell us which file, dependency, route, command, or behavior triggered the flag. But it does mean that normal rebuild/debug actions are probably not the main path anymore.
Practical decision tree
| Observation | Meaning | Practical next step |
|---|---|---|
Runtime API says stage: PAUSED and errorMessage: Flagged as abusive |
The Space is in a HF-side flagged/paused state | Ask HF to review/unpause; include the runtime API output |
| UI restart/factory rebuild returns 503 | Expected symptom once the Space is held in a paused/flagged state | Do not treat the 503 itself as the root cause |
| Hardware change does not help | Consistent with a flag/state issue rather than resource shortage | Stop switching hardware as the main fix |
| A similar duplicate also becomes paused quickly | The code/pattern/account state may be re-triggering the flag | Avoid repeated full duplication |
| Build/container logs update and show real errors | Then it may still have app-level issues too | Debug those only after the flagged state is resolved |
| Runtime API does not show abuse wording in some other case | Then use the normal build/container/healthcheck decision tree | Debug logs, port, startup timeout, etc. |
For this specific Space, the first row is the key one.
Recommended next move
I would reply to the HF support email thread, or send a new concise request to website@huggingface.co, with the runtime API output included.
Use the runtime API output as the main evidence. Something like:
Subject: Space stuck in PAUSED state - runtime API says "Flagged as abusive"
Hi Hugging Face team,
My Space appears to be stuck in a Hugging Face-side flagged PAUSED state.
Space:
https://huggingface.co/spaces/Ark-kun/tangent-1
Runtime API:
https://huggingface.co/api/spaces/Ark-kun/tangent-1/runtime
The runtime API currently shows:
stage: PAUSED
hardware.current: null
hardware.requested: cpu-upgrade
errorMessage: Flagged as abusive
domain: ark-kun-tangent-1.hf.space
domain stage: READY
The UI restart/factory rebuild actions return 503. Switching hardware and creating a similar Space did not resolve the issue.
If this was triggered by an automated scanner or abuse handler, I believe it may need manual review. The intended purpose of the Space is:
...
It is not intended to provide proxy, tunnel, relay, scraping, spam, remote-browser, or restriction-bypass functionality.
If any part of the implementation is not acceptable on Spaces, please let me know what needs to be removed or changed.
Could you please review whether this is a false positive and, if appropriate, clear or unpause the Space?
Thanks.
The key sentence is:
The runtime API says: "errorMessage": "Flagged as abusive".
That is much more actionable than only saying “restart gives 503”.
Why I would avoid repeated duplication now
The duplicate test was useful once, because it showed that the problem may not be a one-off broken Space record.
But now that the runtime API explicitly says Flagged as abusive, repeatedly creating similar Spaces is risky.
From HF’s side, repeated near-identical Spaces after a flag may look like an attempt to work around a platform-side pause, even if your intent is only debugging.
So I would avoid:
- repeatedly cloning the full Space
- repeatedly switching hardware hoping it clears the flag
- pushing many empty commits
- renaming/rearranging the same functionality just to get past the scanner
- creating many near-identical Spaces while the original is still flagged
A small diagnostic reproduction can still be reasonable, but it should be clearly minimal and documented as a debugging test.
Example of a safer diagnostic test:
Minimal test:
- Docker Space
- nginx only
- static page only
- same app_port
- no writable terminal
- no agent TUI
- no shell-like UI
- no proxy-like routes
If that minimal Space runs normally, then the basic Docker/nginx/app_port setup is probably not the trigger.
Then add one component at a time only if needed, and stop if the flag appears again.
Why this repo may look sensitive to an automated scanner
This is not a judgement about intent. It is only a likely scanner/trust-and-safety interpretation.
The Space appears to expose browser-accessible terminal / coding-agent style interfaces through nginx and WebSocket routes. That kind of structure can resemble a remote management or proxy-like environment from a platform scanner’s point of view.
Sensitive-looking ingredients include:
writable web terminal
ttyd / websocket terminal
nginx proxy_pass routes
WebSocket upgrade routes
browser-accessible shell-like interface
remote coding-agent TUIs
multiple agent/tool routes exposed behind nginx
That is quite different from a normal Gradio/Streamlit demo that exposes one app workflow.
Hugging Face’s Content Policy lists “Platform Abuse, Security Violations and Spam” examples including unauthorized bot APIs or remote management tools, Cloudflare Tunnel, TOR, proxies, VNC, Chrome Remote Server, and similar restriction-bypass patterns.
This does not prove that this Space violates the policy. But it explains why the current design may be easy for an automated scanner to classify as risky.
So I would frame the support request as:
I understand why this may look sensitive. Here is the legitimate use case. It is not intended as a proxy/tunnel/relay/scraper/spam/remote-browser/restriction-bypass service. Please review and tell me what needs to be changed.
What we can conclude vs. what we still cannot conclude
What we can conclude from the public runtime API:
stage: PAUSED
errorMessage: Flagged as abusive
hardware.current: null
hardware.requested: cpu-upgrade
So this is not merely a generic app-level 503.
What we cannot conclude from outside:
which internal rule triggered
which exact file triggered
whether ttyd alone triggered it
whether nginx proxy routes triggered it
whether an agent package triggered it
whether the flag is a false positive
whether HF will approve the design after review
Only HF can see the internal moderation/scanner/backend reason.
The most accurate public wording is probably:
The runtime API confirms that the Space is flagged as abusive. Whether that is a correct policy decision or a false positive needs HF-side review.
Relevant public precedents
These do not prove the same root cause, but they are useful because the visible pattern is similar.
Flagged as abusive + PAUSED + restart/factory rebuild/commits ineffective
In this forum report, the runtime API showed stage: PAUSED and errorMessage: Flagged as abusive, while restart, factory rebuild, hardware changes, and commits did not trigger a new build:
“Flagged as abusive” false positive on ZeroGPU Space — cannot restart
Why it is relevant:
- same runtime message pattern
- restart/factory rebuild ineffective
- commits ineffective
- needs HF-side review
RepoScanner / tunnel / Cloudflare false-positive-style report
In this report, the user said the Space was flagged with:
Detector: RepoScanner
Category: huggingface:tunnel
File: API_DOCUMENTATION.md
Pattern: Cloudflare
They removed the file but the abuse flag persisted, and restart/resume/factory rebuild all returned 503:
Space flagged as abusive false positive - cannot restart after removing flagged file
Why it is relevant:
- scanner flags may persist after code changes
- removing or changing files may not automatically clear the Space state
- HF-side review may be required
trojan proxy on :7860
In another report, the UI only showed restart failure, but the API showed:
errorMessage: Flagged as abusive, reason trojan proxy on :7860
Space flagged as “abusive, reason trojan proxy” need help unblocking
Why it is relevant:
- the UI error was generic
- the runtime/API output revealed the actual branch
- logs alone were not enough
Normal Docker/App debugging is secondary here
There may still be app-level issues in the repo. For example, if HF clears the flag and the Space starts building/running again, then normal Docker debugging may still be needed.
But the flagged state should be handled first.
For normal Docker Spaces, the usual checks would be:
- README YAML uses sdk: docker
- app_port matches the server port
- nginx or app server listens on the configured port
- server binds to 0.0.0.0, not only 127.0.0.1
- Dockerfile EXPOSE and runtime port are consistent
- secrets/environment variables exist
- startup does not exceed timeout
- large downloads are not happening only during startup
Relevant docs:
But again, for this case the runtime API already says:
Flagged as abusive
So port/debug work is not the first-order issue right now.
If the goal is a browser-based coding/development environment
If the intended goal is to have a browser-based development environment on Spaces, I would ask HF what pattern is acceptable before continuing with this exact design.
Hugging Face has official documentation for Spaces Dev Mode. That does not automatically solve this case, and it may depend on plan/features, but it is a more standard development path than exposing a custom writable terminal / remote-agent interface through the public Space surface.
Possible safer redesign directions after HF review:
Option 1:
Use official Spaces Dev Mode for development, instead of a public writable terminal route.
Option 2:
Remove writable shell/terminal access from the public Space UI.
Option 3:
Expose only a narrow app/demo workflow instead of a general shell-like interface.
Option 4:
If agent functionality is needed, wrap it in a constrained app flow rather than exposing arbitrary terminal access.
Option 5:
Document the intended use clearly in README and remove proxy/tunnel/remote-management-looking parts that are not essential.
I would not spend too much time redesigning before HF replies, because only HF can say whether the current flag is a false positive and what exact part is unacceptable.
Final recommendation
At this point, I would treat the case as:
confirmed flagged Space state
not confirmed malicious abuse
not confirmed exact trigger
HF-side review required
So the immediate path is:
1. Send the runtime API output to HF.
2. Explain the legitimate intended use.
3. Avoid repeated full duplicates.
4. Ask what must be removed or changed.
5. Only resume app-level debugging after the flagged PAUSED state is resolved.
If it is a false positive, HF needs to clear it. If it is not a false positive, HF is the only party that can tell you what boundary was crossed.