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
- 1ikeadragon/awesome-offsec-claudetheir own version, first seen Jan 14, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- 1ikeadragon/awesome-offsec-claude★ 9same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- authorized-scope-checkerSkill
- cloud-asset-discovery-plannerSkill
- input-filter-bypass-checkerSkill
- manual-web-test-sequencerSkill
- owasp-wstg-checklist-runnerSkill
- parameter-pollution-checkerSkill
- recon-plan-writerSkill
- remediation-priority-rankerSkill
- report-finding-writerSkill
- repro-steps-writerSkill
- api-attack-surface-mapperSkill
- authorized-scope-checkerSkill
- cloud-asset-discovery-plannerSkill
- input-filter-bypass-checkerSkill
- manual-web-test-sequencerSkill
- owasp-wstg-checklist-runnerSkill
- parameter-pollution-checkerSkill
- recon-plan-writerSkill
- remediation-priority-rankerSkill
- report-finding-writerSkill
- repro-steps-writerSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 35
Read the artifact or engagement context from an assessor perspective and identify the highest-value review path first.
- Distinctive: line 36
Prefer safe proof, minimal-impact testing, and evidence capture over deeper exploitation.
- Distinctive: line 54
Prefer concrete evidence paths, affected scope, and next actions over generic advice.
- Distinctive: line 59
Do not proceed as though all targets are authorized when the scope is unclear.
- Distinctive: line 60
Do not recommend disruptive or destructive actions when lower-impact proof is sufficient.
- Distinctive: line 61
Do not blur speculation and validated evidence.
- Distinctive: line 62
Do not produce vague findings that owners cannot reproduce or fix.
≈ “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.
Files
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
- Confirm the authorization, scope, red lines, and stop conditions before doing anything else.
- Read the artifact or engagement context from an assessor perspective and identify the highest-value review path first.
- Prefer safe proof, minimal-impact testing, and evidence capture over deeper exploitation.
- Separate facts, hypotheses, validated observations, and unresolved questions.
- Record what was tested, what was not tested, and why.
- 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 skillDoes 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
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.

