agentleFS
hypnguyen1209hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/skills/engagement-flow/SKILL.md

engagement-flow

Skill401 starsChanged 54 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when starting, planning, or running a multi-phase pentest or red-team engagement — to sequence the Cyber Kill Chain phases with quality gates instead of jumping straight to exploitation

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

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    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:

    Don't jump to exploitation.

    line 15
  2. Distinctive:

    Phases 1-7: before any target interaction → scope-discipline.

    line 38

≈ “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

Engagement Flow

Overview

A pentest/red-team engagement is a phased pipeline with gates, not a pile of techniques run ad hoc. This skill sequences the 9-phase Lockheed Martin Cyber Kill Chain and routes each phase to its commands, domain skills, and discipline checks. It is the offensive analog of brainstorming → writing-plans → executing-plans: scope the work, plan it, then execute phase by phase.

Don't jump to exploitation. Earlier phases earn the access that later phases need, and each gate keeps quality high before you advance.

The pipeline

digraph killchain {
    rankdir=LR;
    scope -> recon -> weaponize -> deliver -> exploit -> install -> c2 -> actions -> report;
    scope [label="0 SCOPE"]; recon [label="1 RECON"]; weaponize [label="2 WEAPONIZE"];
    deliver [label="3 DELIVER"]; exploit [label="4 EXPLOIT"]; install [label="5 INSTALL"];
    c2 [label="6 C2"]; actions [label="7 ACTIONS"]; report [label="8 REPORT"];
}

Each transition requires a gate (/engage.gate): required artifacts present, findings carry CWE+CVSS+ATT&CK+evidence, and the automated checks pass. Gate FAIL → fix the gap before advancing.

How to run it

  1. Pick the workflow preset for the engagement type (web-app, network, red-team, cloud, mobile, ad-domain, bug-bounty) and drive phases with the /engage.* commands.
  2. Phase 0 (scope): emit .engage/scope/scope.json. REQUIRED: scope-discipline.
  3. Phases 1-7: before any target interaction → scope-discipline; before any outward action → opsec-discipline; invoke the matching domain skill for the technique.
  4. Recall prior intel: at recon/weaponize, /engage.memory recall to start from what worked.
  5. Findings: REQUIRED: finding-discipline — nothing is [CONFIRMED] without proof.
  6. Phase 8 (report): record confirmed findings to engagement-memory; generate the report.
  7. Optional autopilot: engine/engine.py runs the phases under a budget/loop/trace with --resume (/engage.pickup); offensive actions stay operator-gated.

Red Flags — STOP, back up a phase

  • "Let me just start exploiting" (no scope.json / no recon → back to phase 0/1)
  • "Skip the gate, I'll document later" (gates exist so the report is complete and findings are real)
  • "Recon is done, I didn't check prior intel" (run /engage.memory recall)

Quick reference

PhaseCommandDiscipline / tooling
Scope/engage.scopescope-discipline → scope.json
Recon/engage.reconscope-discipline; /engage.memory recall
Exploit/engage.exploitopsec-discipline; finding-discipline
Actions/engage.actionsaction_guard gate; opsec-discipline
Report/engage.reportfinding-discipline; record to memory
Gate / resume/engage.gate, /engage.pickupautomated checks; engine trace

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.