bugbounty-reporter
Skill37 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Converts raw bug bounty findings into a complete, triage-ready report clear description, numbered reproduction steps, self-contained PoC, risk, and remediation. Trigger when the user has a confirmed bug bounty finding and needs to write it up, says "write this up", "report this", or "format this for H1/Bugcrowd/Intigriti", or has raw notes, a request/response, or a PoC needing a submission-ready report.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- ad-breachSkill
- ai-llm-hunterSkill
- attack-surfaceSkill
- cavemanSkill
- check-exploitSkill
- clickjacking-hunterSkill
- compliance-gap-analyzerSkill
- control-lookupSkill
- ctf-writeupSkill
- cvss-scorerSkill
- deadangleSkill
- droid-reconSkill
- economist-attackSkill
- engagement-handoffSkill
- finding-writerSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- graphql-raiderSkill
- hexstrike-forgeSkill
- high-severity-hunterSkill
- hpp-hunterSkill
- idor-hunterSkill
- js-analyzerSkill
- jwt-crackerSkill
- less-aggressive-attackSkill
- less-noise-attackSkill
- nuclei-template-writerSkill
- pentest-reportSkill
- redirect-forgeSkill
- redmindSkill
- remediation-plannerSkill
- risk-assessorSkill
- scope-grillSkill
- skill-benchmarkSkill
- ssrf-hunterSkill
- ssti-hunterSkill
- vuln-diagnoseSkill
- xss-hunterSkill
- xxe-phantomSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈11
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
If critical context is missing, ask one question before writing — never stall with multiple questions
- Distinctive: line 19
Run the Pre-Submission Triage Gate below — one NO means do not write the report
- Distinctive: line 20
Check: is this self-XSS, clickjacking on a low-value page, or missing header with no exploit path?
- Distinctive: line 21
Write the report using the structure below
- Distinctive: line 28
Run before writing any report.
- Distinctive: line 38
If all seven pass, proceed to write the report.
- Distinctive: line 62
If two accounts are needed, say so at step 1
- Distinctive: line 67
Use the format that fits:
- Very specific: line 85
Run scripts/cvss-scorer.py to compute the CVSS vector and score if required by the program.
- Very specific: line 91
Never invent evidence — mark missing fields [TO ADD]
- Distinctive: line 93
Do not overstate impact to chase a higher bounty — it damages credibility
- Distinctive: line 94
If HttpOnly blocks cookie theft in an XSS, state what's actually achievable
- Very specific: line 96
Check for duplicates before submitting — see references/severity-platform.md
- Distinctive: line 97
No disclaimers or legal boilerplate in the report
≈ “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 Bounty Reporter
Turn raw findings into a report that gets triaged, not closed. Bug bounty reports fail for two reasons: the triager can't reproduce it, or can't understand why it matters. This skill fixes both.
Process
- Parse the finding — vulnerability class, endpoint, parameter, auth state, observed behavior
- If critical context is missing, ask one question before writing — never stall with multiple questions
- Run the Pre-Submission Triage Gate below — one NO means do not write the report
- Check: is this self-XSS, clickjacking on a low-value page, or missing header with no exploit path? If yes, flag it as likely N/A before writing
- Write the report using the structure below
- Mark any missing field
[TO ADD]— never invent evidence
Pre-Submission Triage Gate
Run before writing any report. One NO = kill the finding.
- Can an attacker use this RIGHT NOW with a real HTTP request?
- Is the impact on the program's accepted-impact list?
- Is the asset in scope?
- Does it work without privileged access an attacker cannot get?
- Is this not already known or documented behavior?
- Can impact be proved beyond "technically possible"?
- Is this not on the program's never-submit list?
If all seven pass, proceed to write the report.
Report Structure
Title
Format: {Bug class} in {scope/endpoint} through {parameter or element} Leads To {impact}
✓ IDOR in api.target.com/invoices/{id} through integer ID Leads To Full Customer Data Exposure
✓ Stored XSS in target.com/profile through bio field Leads To Account Takeover
✗ XSS found
✗ Security issue in APIDescription
2-4 sentences. No filler. Start with the finding.
Template: [Vuln class] exists in [location]. The application [root cause]. An attacker can [impact].
Steps to Reproduce
Numbered, exact, reproducible by someone who has never seen the app.
- State the auth context at step 1
- If two accounts are needed, say so at step 1
- Include exact URL, method, parameter, and value at each step
- End with: "Observe: [what proves the vulnerability]"
Proof of Concept
Use the format that fits:
- HTTP request/response, preferred for API and web vulns
- curl command, for easy reproduction
- Payload + trigger location, for injection vulns
Rules: redact real PII, truncate long tokens, note if destructive actions used test accounts only.
Risk
One paragraph or bullets. Name the actual outcome — no vague statements.
See references/vuln-reference.md for risk statements by vuln class.
See references/disclosed-patterns.md for impact framing from paid reports.
Remediation
Specific and actionable — not "fix the access control".
See references/vuln-reference.md for remediation by vuln class.
Severity
See references/severity-platform.md for severity criteria and CVSS guidance.
Run scripts/cvss-scorer.py to compute the CVSS vector and score if required by the program.
Rules
- Never invent evidence — mark missing fields
[TO ADD] - One clarifying question max before writing
- Do not overstate impact to chase a higher bounty — it damages credibility
- If HttpOnly blocks cookie theft in an XSS, state what's actually achievable
- Self-XSS with no escalation path = not reportable — flag it, suggest a chain if one exists
- Check for duplicates before submitting — see
references/severity-platform.md - No disclaimers or legal boilerplate in the report
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.

