reporting
Skill4 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Reporting standards for single bug, full pentest, and recon-only outputs.
11 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- frnkgns/Overgeared-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- skrrt-sh/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- urvijain02/claude-autopilottheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- BrendenKennedy/claude-for-ai-platformstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- pantalytics/odoo-mcp-protheir own version, first seen Oct 12, 2026
- TaiMaBenJi/taima-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 11
- github/gh-aw★ 5.6ksame name
- pantalytics/odoo-mcp-pro★ 91same name
- frnkgns/Overgeared-Skills★ 7same name
- kekurttel/pentest-skills★ 4same name
- khoks/ClaudeTrading★ 4same name
- skrrt-sh/skills★ 3same name
- adraalabs/skills★ 2same name
- BrendenKennedy/claude-for-ai-platforms★ 1same name
- TaiMaBenJi/taima-skills★ 1same name
- zyphr-labs/bounty-harness★ 1same name
1 more not listed
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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- bug-huntingSkill
- exploitationSkill
- pentest-toolsSkill
- planningSkill
- reconSkill
- research-notesSkill
- traffic-proxySkill
- xray-suiteSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
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 10
All reports must be saved under:
- Distinctive: line 22
Use when one confirmed high-quality issue exists.
- Distinctive: line 34
Use for multi-phase assessments.
- Distinctive: line 45
Use when no exploitable bug is confirmed but strong intel exists.
- Distinctive: line 57
Every finding has reproducible evidence.
- Distinctive: line 58
No finding is only a scanner claim without validation.
- Distinctive: line 64
If exploit details are included, provide:
- Distinctive: line 80
When closing as false positive, document:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
reporting
Report folder structure
All reports must be saved under:
reports/output/<target_slug>/<YYYY-MM-DD>/run_<HHMMSS>/
Artifacts:
- report.md
- findings.json
- metadata.json
Report type selection
1) Single bug report
Use when one confirmed high-quality issue exists.
Required sections:
- Title
- Severity
- Affected endpoint
- Reproduction steps
- PoC request
- Impact
- Remediation
2) Full pentest report
Use for multi-phase assessments.
Required sections:
- Executive summary
- Scope and methodology
- Attack surface summary
- Findings by severity
- Remediation roadmap
- Appendix (commands/artifacts)
3) Recon report
Use when no exploitable bug is confirmed but strong intel exists.
Required sections:
- Target map (hosts/services)
- Technology stack
- Exposed surfaces
- Suspicious signals for follow-up
- Next-step recommendations
Quality checklist
Before finalizing, ensure:
- Every finding has reproducible evidence.
- No finding is only a scanner claim without validation.
- Severity aligns with demonstrated impact.
- Fix guidance is concrete and actionable.
Exploit write-up quality
If exploit details are included, provide:
- Preconditions
- Step-by-step execution
- Clean expected output
- Safe rollback/mitigation notes
Evidence package standard
Each finding should include:
- request/response pair (baseline and exploit case)
- environment and account prerequisites
- deterministic reproduction steps
- impact in business language (data scope, privilege level, workflow effect)
False-positive rejection section
When closing as false positive, document:
- hypothesis tested
- why signal was non-security
- artifact proving rejection
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.