agentleFS
mn-youssefmn-youssef/security-skills/skills/active-pentest/SKILL.md

active-pentest

Skill47 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when you need to actually run security tests against a running application you own or are authorized to test — the shared execution harness for lab/proxy/scanner setup, safe non-destructive execution, and standardized proof-of-concept capture that the find/exploit specialist skills rely on.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not proceed unless all hold:

    line 19
  2. Very specific:

    If any box is unchecked → stop and stay in security-code-audit on code you control.

    line 24
  3. Distinctive:

    Allowed: read-only recon, fingerprinting, single-request PoCs, reading your own test data, proving an IDOR with two test accounts you …

    line 27

≈ “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

Active Pentest (EXPLOIT harness)

Overview

This is the shared execution harness for the FIND/EXPLOIT specialists. They decide what to test — access-control-testing, authentication-testing, business-logic-testing, api-security-testing (and Tier-2 classes like injection / client-side / file-upload). This skill is how you run their tests safely against a live app: set up the lab/proxy/scanners, drive the tools, and capture proof in a consistent format.

Core principle: A finding isn't real until you've reproduced it. A PoC ends the debate. The specialists own the attack recipes; this skill owns safe execution and evidence.

⚠️ Authorization Gate — STOP if not all true

Do not proceed unless all hold:

  • You own the target, or have written authorization to test it.
  • Target is a lab / staging / local instance — not third-party production.
  • You will not run destructive or DoS techniques, and won't touch real user data.

If any box is unchecked → stop and stay in security-code-audit on code you control.

Scope discipline (non-destructive by default)

  • Allowed: read-only recon, fingerprinting, single-request PoCs, reading your own test data, proving an IDOR with two test accounts you created.
  • Avoid: load/stress/DoS, mass scanning, automated exploitation that writes/deletes real data, techniques whose only purpose is evasion of monitoring. Throttle scanners; use test accounts.

Workflow (recon → map → validate → prove)

  1. Recon / fingerprint — what's exposed, what stack, what version.
  2. Map — enumerate endpoints, params, auth flows (mirror the threat model).
  3. Validate — take the attack recipe from the relevant specialist skill and run it with the smallest request that proves the bug. (This skill = the tooling; the specialist = the payload.)
  4. Prove — capture the exact request/response as the PoC; note impact.

See references/tool-playbook.md for how to drive each tool. For what to send, go to the specialist (e.g. IDOR recipes → access-control-testing, ATO flows → authentication-testing).

Quick reference — tool per goal

GoalTool
Port/service/versionnmap -sV
TLS configtestssl.sh, sslscan
Web server quick issuesnikto
Content/endpoint discoveryffuf, gobuster, feroxbuster
Manual request craftingcurl, httpie, Burp Repeater
Intercept / spider / scanOWASP ZAP, Burp Suite
SQLi confirmationsqlmap (on your own app, --batch, scoped)
Mobile trafficBurp/ZAP proxy + device, Frida (pinning), objection
Secrets in code/binarytrufflehog, gitleaks, apktool+jadx

Output: validated findings

For each confirmed item:

  • Finding ID (link back to the audit register)
  • Reproduction: exact command / request
  • Evidence: response excerpt proving impact (redact real data)
  • Confirmed severity & impact
  • → hand to security-hardening for the fix and re-test.

Common mistakes

  • Testing prod or third-party assets "just to check" — that's the line you don't cross.
  • Running sqlmap/scanners full-throttle and knocking over your own staging.
  • Calling something exploitable from theory alone — reproduce it.
  • Keeping noisy PoCs — minimal request, minimal blast radius.

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.