bug-hunting
Skill10 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Bug bounty hunting and penetration testing skills for Claude, Codex, and other agentic AI tools.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Quad4-Software/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 3, 2026
- Aceproulx/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 7, 2026
- Roshu18/bearstrike-aitheir own version, first seen Mar 30, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- Roshu18/bearstrike-ai★ 4same name
- Aceproulx/claude-skills★ 1same name
- Quad4-Software/skills★ 1same name
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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
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
- Very specific: line 22
If resuming a target already worked on, methodology/workflow.md also tells you to read that target's session-notes.md and hypothesis-log.md …
- Very specific: line 26
Read the target's shape (URLs, app type, what you were handed) and pick the matching domain guide.
- Distinctive: line 51
Only test targets you are explicitly authorized to test — an in-scope bug-bounty program, your own systems, or a lab you control.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Bug Hunting — Router
This is the entry point only. It does not contain technique detail — it decides which domain guide to load, then gets out of the way. Loading this file should never cost more than a few hundred tokens.
The core discipline
Real bug hunting is not "run the checklist for one vuln class." Nobody tells you what bug exists, or if one exists at all. The loop is:
- Map the surface completely — every endpoint, param, auth state, response shape.
- Hypothesize widely — for each input, ask "what could this become?" Don't commit to one guess. A URL-fetching param could be SSRF, or IDOR if that value doubles as a record key — keep both alive until evidence rules one out.
- Confirm, don't guess — a finding is only real once you've proven it (differential response, out-of-band callback, reproduced twice). Report only what you proved.
Step 0 — the operating workflow (mandatory, before any domain routing)
Before picking a domain, load methodology/workflow.md and follow it. This is not optional technique reference — it's the administrative discipline that separates a systematic hunter from someone with the same knowledge who doesn't organize it: a real per-target working folder (scope.md, recon/, hypothesis-log.md, findings/, session-notes.md), a hard gate that blocks exploitation until recon is actually marked complete, a running log of every hypothesis tried (so nothing gets re-tested or lost across a long session), and a resume record so a paused engagement doesn't restart from zero.
If resuming a target already worked on, methodology/workflow.md also tells you to read that target's session-notes.md and hypothesis-log.md first — before doing anything else.
Step 1 — identify the target type
Read the target's shape (URLs, app type, what you were handed) and pick the matching domain guide. Load only that guide's ROUTER.md next — not its references/, not another domain.
| Target looks like | Load |
| A website, web app, traditional HTTP endpoints | web/ROUTER.md |
| A documented/undocumented API — REST, GraphQL, gRPC, WebSocket | api/ROUTER.md |
| An iOS or Android app (APK, IPA, mobile client) | mobile/ROUTER.md |
| Cloud infra, IAM, SSO/enterprise identity (Okta, Entra, SAML, VPN) | cloud-identity/ROUTER.md |
| An AI/LLM feature — chatbot, agent, RAG, tool-calling | ai-llm/ROUTER.md |
| You don't know yet — need to map the attack surface first | recon/ROUTER.md |
A single engagement often touches more than one — e.g. a web app backed by an API backed by an LLM feature. Load each relevant domain's ROUTER.md as you reach that part of the surface; don't front-load all of them.
Step 2 — inside a domain guide
Each domain ROUTER.md is a signal table: observable thing about this endpoint → plausible vuln class(es) → how to confirm. It stays small on purpose. Only when it points you at a specific class and you're going deep on that one, pull the matching file from that domain's references/.
Step 3 — always applies, regardless of domain
methodology/workflow.md— the working-folder/hypothesis-log/resume discipline from Step 0. Referenced again here because it stays active for the whole engagement, not just at the start.methodology/mindset.md— the hunter's decision loop in more depth (recon-first, hypothesize-wide, confirm-strict), read once, not per-target.methodology/reporting.md— how to write up a confirmed finding so it gets paid, not closed — a finding only moves from the hypothesis log intofindings/once it clears this bar.
Scope discipline
Only test targets you are explicitly authorized to test — an in-scope bug-bounty program, your own systems, or a lab you control. Read the program's scope and rules before sending a single request. This applies regardless of which domain guide is loaded.
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.

