Allocate responsibility for it to the DM, and consider embracing the metagame elements of the situation
My answer came out with an odd structure. The first two sections are not quite frame challenges, but are information I consider relevant to the question. The direct answer, matching the header above, follows after.
First thing's first:
I recommend not playing in the way you describe. You may or may not have sound reasons for trying to do so, but really consider whether or not that is the case (versus something that you want to do because it will be fun for you, at the expense of the rest of the players). Without context, my assumption will always be that this style is a net negative to a table.
In a comment you mentioned that your DM has integrated this dynamic into the campaign plot, so this danger is a lot less acute than it might be. I still support betrayals like you describe as plot elements rather than opportunistic troublemaking (story is fun to discover all around, but sabotage that is fun for you may make another player have less fun when they suddenly can't succeed at what their character is built to do). But this doesn't seem like the worst-case scenario of PvP betrayals.
Second thing's second:
As above, I don't have the surrounding context for why this play style is one that you are pursuing and so can't evaluate the situation fully. But it may be worth pumping the brakes a bit on the let's avoid metagaming condition. You yourself are metagaming quite a bit by colluding with the DM to keep this information secret from the other players. It may be worth giving the other players some sort of chance to engage and deal with this behavior at the metagame level as well as the game level. That doesn't even have to be difficult-- any time you pick up your dice and roll them you're providing some meta information to the other players.
At some point deceiving the other players as you cause their arbitrary failures is similarly unfair as simply taking their dice away.
My answer to the question as asked:
This style of play, where one PC is secretly and arbitrarily a traitor, tends to mismatch the game between players. Most of the table is playing game A, while you are only nominally playing game A and are instead playing game B against the other players. That can be pretty awkward, and if the campaign itself is played straight (as in, it doesn't have this inter-player conflict as an element but you and the DM have simply added that into what the campaign is designed for) it can result in a zero-sum allocation of fun (your success means the other players' failure, and vice versa).
It is much, much better (in my opinion) to have the DM integrate this party-betrayal element into the campaign narrative itself. Including some other elements around your betrayals can help bind PC activities together in pursuit of fun all around, such as:
- Specific plot reasons why your PC is sabotaging the others
- Having a clear path to the party's overall success in the campaign
despite your sabotage (even if that means your PC "loses")
- Planning for your character to ultimately "lose" the campaign (to the rest of the party, your PC is essentially just another antagonist)
- Granting opportunities for the other players to notice what's
happening and respond
There are other possibilities. But the general idea is that this should be a part of the campaign story which players interact with, investigate, and possibly overcome. With that perspective most elements of the betrayals become firmly the DM's purview.
A smooth way to incorporate these elements will match things that the DM already does (or might do). For example, instead of your character determining chances for sabotage at a whim, maybe you prepare a table of generic things your PC might try to do if the opportunity arises, and then leave it to the DM to notice those opportunities and make the rolls. If you're really into making the rolls yourself, you can pre-roll a d20 and give the results to your DM to apply when appropriate. These will save you from making conspicuously out of place die rolls (why would it come about that your character suddenly trips over a rock, knife drawn, when nothing like that happens to other players?).
Things like "sabotage a weapon", "alert guards", "spring traps at inopportune times", and so on are probably the right level of abstraction to allow the DM to make situation-specific applications at need.
The DM is also much better situated to place and adjudicate other players' awareness of clues regarding their misfortunes, your role in them, and directions the plot may develop as a result, than you yourself are. As a player who has apparently chosen to play the game in an adversarial way, you have a vested interest in "winning" over the other players which is likely to lead you to carry out these efforts unfairly (with respect to the other players' ability to notice or resist), while the DM is more likely to be working to balance fun for the entire table.
The DM is also better positioned, and better motivated, to create some rules around these activities which allow the other players to play the same game as you, even if at a disadvantage. If there are no mechanisms allowing the other players to deal with your actions, the game simply becomes arbitrarily harder for them. You have made yourself an antagonist to the party, and making you undetectable to the PCs is not that different from declaring a villain immune to all damage or interference. Rigged games tend not to be fun.