Unprosecuted crimes (e.g. the perjury one must commit to file a false DMCA notice) have a strange way of suddenly becoming prosecuted crimes when people act in blatant disregard for the law.
So if you say, "I'm requesting you take this down because it infringes on Star Wars and I'm an authorized agent of Disney" when you have no relation with Disney, you're up for perjury.
However, if you say, "I'm requesting you take this down because it infringes on blahblah.avi and I hold copyright to blahblah.avi" which is true, then no perjury penalty. Even if blahblah.avi has nothing to do with the github repo being taken down. "Oops, my bad, honest mistake, wink wink." The person on the receiving end of the DMCA still has to jump through all the hoops to get their own copyright material reinstated.
So if you do your bot right, there's no penalty. None at all. If there is, I'd love to know about it, because these bots need to die in a fire.
They're the employees who will have to get in and make changes to the system and they work for the companies that have to make noise and say no to the DMCA issuers.
If they blanket exclude their own employees of the policies everyone else has to abide, well, that'll say something won't it. There seems to be no negative effect of making false DMCAs so play that game.