agentleFS
45ck45ck/pentest-security-testing-skills/.agents/skills/api-attack-surface-mapper/SKILL.md

api-attack-surface-mapper

Skill1 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the artifact or engagement context from an assessor perspective and identify the highest-value review path first.

    line 35
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer safe proof, minimal-impact testing, and evidence capture over deeper exploitation.

    line 36
  3. Distinctive:

    Prefer concrete evidence paths, affected scope, and next actions over generic advice.

    line 54
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not proceed as though all targets are authorized when the scope is unclear.

    line 59
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not recommend disruptive or destructive actions when lower-impact proof is sufficient.

    line 60
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not blur speculation and validated evidence.

    line 61
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not produce vague findings that owners cannot reproduce or fix.

    line 62

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

api-attack-surface-mapper

Purpose

Map the API attack surface of an authorized target by enumerating endpoints, verbs, auth paths, object relationships, and abuse opportunities.

Trigger this skill when

  • The current artifact or engagement needs a structured security-testing step rather than ad hoc probing.
  • You need evidence-backed outputs that can hand off cleanly to reporting or remediation.
  • You are working only within owned or explicitly authorized scope.

Expected inputs

  • API docs
  • routes/endpoints
  • auth model
  • sample requests
  • business workflows

Deliverables

  • API surface map
  • endpoint inventory
  • auth/authorization review points
  • abuse hypotheses
  • priority test targets

Operating procedure

  1. Confirm the authorization, scope, red lines, and stop conditions before doing anything else.
  2. Read the artifact or engagement context from an assessor perspective and identify the highest-value review path first.
  3. Prefer safe proof, minimal-impact testing, and evidence capture over deeper exploitation.
  4. Separate facts, hypotheses, validated observations, and unresolved questions.
  5. Record what was tested, what was not tested, and why.
  6. Finish with the most sensible handoff skill based on whether the next need is more testing, reporting, or remediation.

Quality gates

  • Output remains specific to the authorized target and current evidence.
  • Unsafe, out-of-scope, or ambiguous actions are explicitly rejected or escalated.
  • Findings or test plans are concrete enough for another engineer or reviewer to follow.
  • Recommendations are actionable and proportional to the demonstrated issue.

Handoff targets

  • parameter-pollution-checker
  • manual-web-test-sequencer
  • report-finding-writer

Output style

  • Be explicit about authorization assumptions and testing boundaries.
  • Prefer concrete evidence paths, affected scope, and next actions over generic advice.
  • Separate facts, hypotheses, validated findings, and recommendations.
  • Make the output usable by defenders, builders, and reviewers.

Failure modes to avoid

  • Do not proceed as though all targets are authorized when the scope is unclear.
  • Do not recommend disruptive or destructive actions when lower-impact proof is sufficient.
  • Do not blur speculation and validated evidence.
  • Do not produce vague findings that owners cannot reproduce or fix.

Minimum output skeleton

## Summary
## Facts and scope
## Structured outputs
## Risks or findings
## Recommendations
## Recommended next skill

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.