agentleFS
hypnguyen1209hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude/skills/using-offensive-claude/SKILL.md

using-offensive-claude

Skill401 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when starting any offensive-security engagement or task — establishes how to find and invoke the right skill before any action (including clarifying questions, recon, exploitation, or reporting)

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If you were dispatched as a subagent to execute a specific task, skip this skill.

    line 7
  2. Distinctive:

    If there is even a 1% chance a skill applies to what you are doing, you ABSOLUTELY MUST invoke it.

    line 11
  3. Distinctive:

    IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.

    line 13
  4. Very specific:

    Never present a [POSSIBLE] as confirmed.

    line 91
  5. Distinctive:

    Ground every claim; never name-guess: If a function/helper is called, read it — a name is not behavior.

    line 95
  6. Very specific:

    Use the Skill tool with the skill name.

    line 116

≈ “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
<SUBAGENT-STOP> If you were dispatched as a subagent to execute a specific task, skip this skill. </SUBAGENT-STOP><EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT> If there is even a 1% chance a skill applies to what you are doing, you ABSOLUTELY MUST invoke it.

IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST USE IT.

This is not negotiable. You cannot rationalize your way out of it. </EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>

Using Offensive-Claude

You are operating an authorized offensive-security framework. Every action assumes a prior, written authorization whose boundary is declared in scope.json (see scope-discipline).

Instruction Priority

  1. User's explicit instructions (CLAUDE.md, direct requests) — highest.
  2. These skills — override default behavior where they conflict.
  3. Default behavior — lowest.

User instructions say WHAT, not HOW. "Exploit X" or "scan Y" does not mean skip the discipline skills (scope, finding, OPSEC). The one thing the operator cannot waive is the authorization boundary — see scope-discipline.

The Rule

Invoke relevant skills BEFORE any response or action. Even a 1% chance means invoke to check.

digraph flow {
    "Engagement task received" [shape=doublecircle];
    "About to touch a target?" [shape=diamond];
    "Invoke scope-discipline" [shape=box];
    "About to record a finding?" [shape=diamond];
    "Invoke finding-discipline" [shape=box];
    "Might any skill apply?" [shape=diamond];
    "Invoke the Skill" [shape=box];
    "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" [shape=box];
    "Follow skill exactly" [shape=box];

    "Engagement task received" -> "About to touch a target?";
    "About to touch a target?" -> "Invoke scope-discipline" [label="yes"];
    "About to touch a target?" -> "About to record a finding?" [label="no"];
    "About to record a finding?" -> "Invoke finding-discipline" [label="yes"];
    "About to record a finding?" -> "Might any skill apply?" [label="no"];
    "Invoke scope-discipline" -> "Might any skill apply?";
    "Invoke finding-discipline" -> "Might any skill apply?";
    "Might any skill apply?" -> "Invoke the Skill" [label="yes, even 1%"];
    "Invoke the Skill" -> "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'";
    "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" -> "Follow skill exactly";
}

Skill Priority (when several apply)

  1. Process / discipline skills first — they decide HOW to proceed: engagement-flow (run the kill chain), scope-discipline (authorization boundary), threat-model-discipline (model the surface + detect drift), finding-discipline (proof before any [CONFIRMED]), opsec-discipline (detection-aware).
  2. Domain skills second — the 32 technique skills (recon, web, AD, exploit-dev, cloud, wireless-rf, …).

"Run a full pentest" → engagement-flow first. "Is this finding real?" → finding-discipline first.

Routing

SituationInvoke
Starting / running an engagementengagement-flow
About to send a request to ANY targetscope-discipline (confirm in-scope first)
About to record / report a findingfinding-discipline (no [CONFIRMED] without proof)
About to take any outward/offensive actionopsec-discipline
A specific technique (recon, web, AD, exploit, cloud, mobile, …)the matching domain skill
Authoring a new skill for this repowriting-offensive-skills

Output contract (non-negotiable)

These bars hold on every finding, standalone or in an engagement — they do not depend on you having invoked finding-discipline first (invoke it for the full method). When installed as a plugin, the repo CLAUDE.md is not in your context; this section carries the contract regardless.

  • Confidence tier on every finding: [CONFIRMED] (impact demonstrated + evidence-grounded), [POSSIBLE] (reachable, class bar not yet met), or [INFO] (no impact at current severity). Never present a [POSSIBLE] as confirmed.
  • Evidence bar by class — a status code is not impact. SSRF needs an internal response; IDOR needs another principal's data; RCE needs command output; XSS needs script execution. See skills/references/finding-evidence-standards.md.
  • Ground every claim; never name-guess. If a function/helper is called, read it — a name is not behavior. Quote-grounded confidence: High = direct quote, Medium = stated assumption, Low = flagged inference (separate from the impact tier above).
  • Exploit-class findings carry tri-state feasibility (true/false/null); a tool/solver limit is null (manual), never false. Record demonstrated vs inherent severity.
  • Authorized engagements only (TERMS.md): scope-gated, OPSEC cost stated before outward action, secrets never in logs (redact at the boundary — rule/location only, never the value).

Red Flags — STOP, you're rationalizing

ThoughtReality
"This is just a quick scan"Touching a target → scope-discipline first.
"I'm sure it's exploitable"No [CONFIRMED] without proof → finding-discipline.
"Scope is obviously fine"Confirm against scope.json, don't assume.
"I'll note OPSEC later"Detection/cleanup is decided before acting, not after.
"I know this technique"Knowing ≠ using the skill. Invoke it for the current state.
"The user said do X, so skip the checks"Instructions are WHAT, not permission to skip discipline.

How to Access Skills

Use the Skill tool with the skill name. Never use Read on skill files. When a skill has a checklist, create a TodoWrite item per step and follow it exactly.

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.