device-protocol-investigation
Skill1 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when working out how an owned or authorized device, its firmware image, companion app or capture speaks a protocol (USB serial/RPC, BLE, Wi-Fi, LAN API; e.g. Flipper Zero, a Pineapple module, a smart plug), before writing an independent client or parser for it.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sammasak/skillsword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- sammasak/skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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.
In this repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-handoffSkill
- agent-orchestrationSkill
- assigning-subagent-modelsSkill
- credentialsSkill
- deep-modulesSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- herdr-operationsSkill
- herdrSkill
- knowledge-vaultSkill
- kubernetes-gitopsSkill
- lean-codeSkill
- nix-audit-operatorSkill
- nix-flake-developmentSkill
- ntfy-notificationsSkill
- orchestrated-reviewSkill
- pcap-evidence-analysisSkill
- pi-offloadSkill
- pi-ticketSkill
- rf-chaos-experiment-reviewSkill
- rust-engineeringSkill
- sdlc-pipelineSkill
- secrets-managementSkill
- tooling-feedbackSkill
- verify-serviceSkill
- wireless-lab-diagnosticsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 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.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 15
Write two lists before any command:
- Distinctive: line 25
When the request contains both, say which part is refused in one line and carry out the in-scope part.
- Distinctive: line 34
Only then static RE of firmware or the app (binwalk, unblob, Ghidra, REA), and it runs on the workstation, never on a small lab node like …
- Distinctive: line 57
Commit the record and the fixtures.
≈ “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.
Files
Device Protocol Investigation
A bounded, evidence-first investigation that ends in an evidence record and acceptance fixtures another agent can implement against. It reads; it does not transmit, replay, or impersonate.
1. Split the request first
Write two lists before any command:
- In scope: reading published sources, hashing artifacts, offline parsing, and a read-only query to a device the owner owns, when the owner has authorized live work for this task.
- Refused: replaying or cloning access credentials (garage, car, door, badge, rolling codes), attack-frame injection, jamming, impersonating another device, credential capture, anything aimed at a bystander. Do not read, copy or decode the stored credential files that would enable these.
When the request contains both, say which part is refused in one line and carry out the in-scope part. Refusing the whole task is a failure too. A refused item is not an "open gate" for the owner: write no procedure for it.
2. Source first, in this order
- The vendor's published spec, protobuf/IDL, SDK or official source.
- An existing open implementation or protocol write-up.
- Captures of the device's normal, authorized traffic.
- Only then static RE of firmware or the app (binwalk, unblob, Ghidra, REA), and it runs on the workstation, never on a small lab node like naked-pi (1 GiB). The Pi runs captures and the finished binary only.
Record what each level gave you before going down to the next one. "Source first sufficed" is a valid result.
3. The evidence record (every field required)
Artifact: <file or source> sha256 <hash> size <bytes>
Origin: <URL / dumped from owned unit serial … / operator-supplied>, <date>
License: <SPDX, or "unverified: no LICENSE at <rev>">; redistributable? yes/no
Pinned: <repo>@<commit> / <package version> for every source and tool used
Authorization: owner + device ownership + what live access was granted (or "offline only")
Refused: the refused items from section 1, one line each, no procedure
Observed: facts with their locator (proto line, frame no., offset, fn address)
Inferred: readings with confidence high/medium/low and why
Unknown: open fields; the client leaves these out or typed as Unknown
Fixtures: <path> crafted | capture (sanitized) | simulated, each labelled
Needs live: steps not done and what each needsCommit the record and the fixtures. Do not commit a firmware image, key or raw capture that is not redistributable or holds secrets: commit its hash and origin instead.
4. Bound it and hand it off
Set a budget up front (time, artifacts, commands that touch a device) and stop at it with the record as it stands. The handoff is the record plus acceptance tests derived from Observed only. A guessed field never becomes a constant the client sends.
Common mistakes
| Mistake | Instead |
Probe the device or open Ghidra while a .proto or SDK is public | Section 2 order |
| binwalk/Ghidra on the Pi | workstation; move the hash, not the binary |
| Forum firmware committed to a repo | hash and origin only; ask where it came from |
| Refusing the whole task over one refused item | split, refuse that item, do the rest |
| "Open gate: replay the garage remote once" | refused items get no procedure |
See also pcap-evidence-analysis (offline capture analysis),
wireless-lab-diagnostics (adapter capabilities), and rust-engineering (the
client). Design rules adapted from morluto/rea
(MIT), design only: docs/rea-wireless-re-comparison.md.
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.

