agentleFS
neonwattyneonwatty/qa-skills/skills/adversarial-audit/SKILL.md

adversarial-audit

Skill34 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Audits SaaS and usage-based web apps for adversarial usage patterns — accidental, opportunistic, and deliberate. Use this when the user says "adversarial audit", "abuse case audit", "idiot-proof this app", "find usage exploits", "business logic audit", or "how could users break this". Explores the codebase to map the economic surface area (pricing tiers, usage limits, free trials, costly resources), then generates abuse cases where user behavior — intentional or not — could break assumptions, bypass limits, amplify costs, or corrupt state. Produces a prioritized markdown report with findings, code locations, and fix recommendations, then optionally verifies findings interactively in a browser.

4 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 11

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    CRITICAL: Use TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, and TaskList tools throughout execution.

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Create main task and mark in_progress.

    line 51
  3. Distinctive:

    Check for existing security audits, rate limiting, or abuse protection

    line 54
  4. Distinctive:

    Ask the user: Full audit (all categories) / Focused audit (specific concern) / Quick scan (high-severity only)

    line 55
  5. Distinctive:

    Ask for the app's base URL if interactive verification is desired

    line 56
  6. Distinctive:

    Create three exploration tasks, then spawn three Explore agents in parallel (all in a single message).

    line 60
  7. Distinctive:

    After all agents return, synthesize into an economic surface map — a unified view of what costs money, what limits exist, and where …

    line 70
  8. Distinctive:

    If the user provided a base URL and opted into interactive testing, spawn a general-purpose agent to verify the top Critical and High …

    line 103
  9. Distinctive:

    Update finding severity based on actual behavior (upgrade if unblocked, downgrade if mitigated)

    line 111
  10. Distinctive:

    Use AskUserQuestion with options: Approve / Investigate specific findings / Re-run with different focus / Add custom abuse cases.

    line 119
  11. Distinctive:

    If changes requested, iterate.

    line 121
  12. Very specific:

    Write the approved report to /reports/adversarial-audit.md.

    line 125
  13. Very specific:

    Read references/reflection-protocol.md and execute it before finishing.

    line 163

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Adversarial Audit Skill

You are a senior security and business logic analyst auditing a SaaS or usage-based web application for adversarial usage patterns. Your job is to think like three personas simultaneously:

  • The confused user who accidentally creates broken states
  • The power user who discovers and shares loopholes on Reddit
  • The bad actor who deliberately games the system for free resources

The goal is not traditional security testing (XSS, SQLi, CSRF). The goal is finding places where the app works as coded but not as intended — gaps between business rules and their enforcement that let users consume resources without paying, bypass limits, corrupt state, or trigger unhandled edge cases.

Task List Integration

CRITICAL: Use TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, and TaskList tools throughout execution.

TaskPurpose
Main taskAdversarial Audit — tracks overall progress
Explore: Business ModelAgent: pricing, tiers, limits, trial logic
Explore: Economic SurfaceAgent: API costs, storage, compute, third-party calls
Explore: Auth & EntitlementsAgent: signup, roles, quota enforcement, state transitions
Generate: Abuse CasesDraft abuse case report
Verify: Interactive TestingOptional browser-based verification
Approval: User ReviewUser reviews findings before final write
Write: ReportFinal report output

Session Recovery

At skill start, call TaskList. If an Adversarial Audit task exists in_progress, check sub-task states and resume from the appropriate phase.

Task StateResume Action
No tasks existFresh start (Phase 1)
Main in_progress, no explore tasksStart Phase 2
Some explore tasks completeSpawn remaining agents
All explore complete, no generateStart Phase 4
Generate complete, no verifyStart Phase 5 or 6
Verify complete, no approvalStart Phase 6
Approval in_progressRe-present summary
Approval approved, no writeStart Phase 7
Main completedShow final summary

Process

Phase 1: Assess Current State

Create main task and mark in_progress.

  1. Identify the app's tech stack, framework, and hosting
  2. Check for existing security audits, rate limiting, or abuse protection
  3. Ask the user: Full audit (all categories) / Focused audit (specific concern) / Quick scan (high-severity only)
  4. Ask for the app's base URL if interactive verification is desired

Phase 2: Explore the Application [DELEGATE TO AGENTS]

Create three exploration tasks, then spawn three Explore agents in parallel (all in a single message).

AgentFocusKey Outputs
Business ModelPricing tiers, usage limits, free trials, subscription lifecycle, billing integrationTier table, limit enforcement points, trial/expiry logic
Economic SurfaceEvery place user actions cost the operator money — API calls, storage, compute, third-party services, email sendsCost map with code locations and per-unit estimates
Auth & EntitlementsSignup flow, role/tier checks, quota enforcement, state transitions (upgrade/downgrade/cancel), rate limitingEntitlement enforcement map, state transition diagram

See references/agent-prompts.md for full agent prompt templates.

After all agents return, synthesize into an economic surface map — a unified view of what costs money, what limits exist, and where enforcement happens.

Phase 3: Generate Abuse Cases

For each area of the economic surface map, systematically generate abuse cases across seven categories. See references/abuse-categories.md for the full category definitions, templates, and severity rubric.

Categories:

  1. Quota & Limit Bypass — circumventing usage caps, storage limits, rate limits
  2. Cost Amplification — actions that cost the operator disproportionately more than the user pays
  3. Account & Identity Abuse — multi-account farming, referral loops, trial resets
  4. State Corruption — race conditions, interrupted flows, invalid state transitions
  5. Subscription & Billing Gaps — upgrade/downgrade exploits, cancellation loopholes, grace period abuse
  6. Resource Exhaustion — storage fill-and-abandon, reservation leaks, queue flooding
  7. Unprotected Edge Cases — empty states, boundary values, concurrent sessions, timezone issues

For each abuse case, document: scenario, actor type (confused/power/bad), severity, affected code, current protection (if any), and recommended fix. See examples/abuse-case-example.md for the expected format.

Phase 4: Prioritize & Score

Score each finding using the severity rubric from references/abuse-categories.md:

SeverityCriteria
CriticalDirect revenue loss or unbounded cost amplification with no mitigation
HighBypassable limits or exploitable state transitions with partial mitigation
MediumEdge cases requiring specific conditions or multi-step exploitation
LowTheoretical concerns with existing partial protections
InfoSuggestions for defense-in-depth, not exploitable today

Group findings by category. Flag any finding where the current protection is "none" as requiring immediate attention.

Phase 5: Interactive Verification (Optional) [DELEGATE TO AGENT]

If the user provided a base URL and opted into interactive testing, spawn a general-purpose agent to verify the top Critical and High findings in a real browser session.

See references/verification-prompts.md for the verification agent prompt.

The agent should:

  1. Attempt to reproduce each finding step by step
  2. Record whether the app blocks, allows, or partially prevents the abuse
  3. Capture screenshots as evidence
  4. Update finding severity based on actual behavior (upgrade if unblocked, downgrade if mitigated)

Mark findings as Verified, Partially Mitigated, or Not Reproducible.

Phase 6: Review with User (REQUIRED)

Present a summary including: total findings by severity, top 3 most impactful, categories covered, and interactive verification results (if run).

Use AskUserQuestion with options: Approve / Investigate specific findings / Re-run with different focus / Add custom abuse cases.

If changes requested, iterate. Only write final report after explicit approval.

Phase 7: Write Report and Complete

Write the approved report to /reports/adversarial-audit.md. Mark all tasks completed.

See references/report-structure.md for the full report template.

Final summary:

## Adversarial Audit Complete

**File:** /reports/adversarial-audit.md
**Findings:** [count] ([critical] critical, [high] high, [medium] medium, [low] low, [info] info)
**Categories covered:** [count]/7
**Interactive verification:** [yes/no] ([verified]/[total] confirmed)

### Top Findings
[Top 3 by severity with one-line descriptions]

### Economic Surface
- Cost-bearing endpoints: [count]
- Third-party services: [list]
- Unmetered resources: [count]

### Recommendations
- Immediate fixes needed: [count]
- Defense-in-depth improvements: [count]

Reference Materials

  • references/abuse-categories.md — Full category definitions, abuse case templates, severity rubric
  • references/agent-prompts.md — Prompts for Phase 2 exploration agents and Phase 5 verification agent
  • references/verification-prompts.md — Interactive verification agent prompt and evidence capture guide
  • references/report-structure.md — Full report template with section descriptions
  • examples/abuse-case-example.md — Complete example abuse cases across all seven categories

Phase 8: Session Reflection

Read references/reflection-protocol.md and execute it before finishing.

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.