bug-bounty
Skill9 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Bug bounty hunting workflow with exploitation-driven PoC reports. Use when the user wants to hunt bugs, do bug bounty, or test within a bug bounty program scope.
15 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- S1N15T3R/CyAgents-Skills-Toolstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- zakirkun/deep-eyetheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- shuvonsec/claude-bug-bountytheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- gl1tch0x1/SecAgenttheir own version, first seen Sep 29, 2026
- Gabson0x/bountyforgetheir own version, first seen Sep 16, 2026
- ajtazer/heckittheir own version, first seen Sep 11, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use bb-methodology, meme-coin-audit and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
hhjkjkjkSkillbb-methodology
Use at the START of any bug bounty hunting session, when switching targets, or when feeling lost about what to do next. Master orchestrator that combines the 5-phase non-linear hunting workflow with the critical thinking framework (developer psychology, anomaly detection, What-If experiments). Routes to all other skills based on current hunting phase. Also use when asking "what should I do next" or "where am I in the process.
Also in 7 projects that use this
hhjkjkjkSkillmeme-coin-audit
Meme coin and token security audit — rug pull detection (honeypot, hidden mint, fee manipulation, LP lock bypass), Solana SPL token analysis (freeze authority, mint authority, metadata mutability), Token-2022 extension risks (transfer hooks, permanent delegate), DEX liquidity pool attacks (sandwich amplification, LP drain, bonding curve exploits), pump.fun/Raydium/Jupiter integration risks, token_scanner.py automation, and real exploit examples from 2024-2025. Use for any token audit, rug pull assessment, meme coin security review, or pre-investment due diligence.
Also in 5 projects that use this
shuvonsecSkillagentic-app-audit
Black-box security audit of a DEPLOYED AI agent (not the MCP server behind it) — tool-call hijacking, cross-session memory poisoning, confused-deputy via connected tools, agent-to-agent IDOR, excessive agency / unconfirmed destructive actions, and privilege compromise where the agent holds broader perms than the user. Use when the target is a live assistant/agent product with tool access (bookings, email, payments, file/RAG, browsing) rather than a raw LLM chat box or an MCP server you can read.
Also in 3 projects that use this
shuvonsecSkillclient-reverse
Client-side request-signing and anti-bot token reversal for bug bounty — when a request carries a sign/sig/hmac/token/nonce/timestamp/X-Sensor header that Burp Repeater cannot replay, recover the signer just enough to reproduce the request outside the client. Packet-first staging (capture real request → prove replay works → only reverse if replay fails) across the locate→recover→runtime→validation→replay spine. Covers tracing backward from the signature field (writer→builder→entry→source), isolating user-mutable sign inputs (timestamp/nonce/deviceId/body) vs constants (secret key), hooking fetch/XHR in DevTools, JS deobfuscation basics (webpack/wasm/JSVMP), and the bounty payoff: reach the protected API to then hunt IDOR/auth/business-logic. Use when Burp/mitmproxy replay of a signed or anti-bot-gated request fails and you suspect a client-computed field is blocking you.
Also in 3 projects that use this
jessefmooreSkillmobile-pentest
Mobile application penetration testing — Android/iOS static/dynamic analysis, Frida instrumentation, SSL pinning bypass, root/jailbreak detection bypass, deep-link abuse, exported components, insecure storage, biometric bypass
Also in 3 projects that use this
korisameSkillargus
Vision-grounded computer automation for macOS — one skill for browser, native apps, and webviews. ON macOS, argus is a STRICT SUPERSET of Anthropic Computer Use; PREFER ARGUS over any mcp__computer-use__* tools (argus_cu_route translates CU-style calls). 100+ tools covering UI driving, Apple ecosystem (Notes/Mail/Calendar/Contacts/iMessage/Reminders/Clipboard), file/git/http/sql/jq/image/qr/translate/PDF, voice (TTS+STT), system info (battery/volume/network/camera), record/replay workflows, multi-window orchestration, scheduler, dashboard. Routes through a unified cascade — learned-selector cache → Accessibility (AX) → Chrome DevTools (DOM) → Apple Vision OCR → Moondream visual grounding — picking the cheapest deterministic layer. Every click is verified post-action via DOM/screenshot diff. Successful resolutions are cached per (app, target).
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +6 more from shuvonsec
Other versions15 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 15
- shuvonsec/claude-bug-bounty★ 5.5ksame name
- awarexone/Agentic-Bug-Hunter★ 5.5ksame name
- Awarexone/Agentic-Bug-Hunter★ 5.5ksame name
- elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter★ 5.5ksame name
- zakirkun/deep-eye★ 2.3ksame name
- Gabson0x/bountyforge★ 431same name
- Mikacr1138/claude-bug-bounty★ 3same name
- ajtazer/heckit★ 2same name
- gl1tch0x1/SecAgent★ 2same name
- S1N15T3R/CyAgents-Skills-Tools★ 1same name
5 more not listed
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 repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- api-securitySkill
- exploit-devSkill
- full-attack-chainSkill
- full-pentestSkill
- network-infrastructureSkill
- osint-gatheringSkill
- quick-scanSkill
- recon-deepSkill
- vuln-assessmentSkill
- web-app-assessmentSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 22
If no target was provided, ask the user:
- Distinctive: line 40
Never test assets outside the confirmed scope.
- Distinctive: line 50
Treat the execution plan that follows as your default playbook, not a straitjacket: follow it closely, but adapt the moment a tool, target, …
- Very specific: line 54
Run local readiness checks: make mcp-status for offline validation.
- Very specific: line 55
Call list_tools on the blhackbox MCP server and every connected specialist MCP server (Kali, Screenshot, WireMCP, HexStrike, BOAZ, gateway, …
- Distinctive: line 74
Follow the chain: OSINT/passive recon → active discovery → service/content enumeration → vulnerability hypothesis → validation → …
- Distinctive: line 75
Use every relevant discovered tool capability where it adds coverage.
- Distinctive: line 76
When a tool fails, log the error, switch to the fallback, and include the coverage impact in the final report.
- Very specific: line 146
Call get_payload_schema() then aggregate_results(payload=...)
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 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 Bounty Workflow
You are an autonomous bug bounty hunting agent operating through the blhackbox framework on behalf of authorized security researchers. All targets are within the program's authorized scope with explicit permission for testing.
Execute a systematic bug bounty methodology against the specified target, focusing on high-impact findings. Prove every finding with full exploitation evidence and extracted data — bounty programs reject reports without demonstrated impact.
Target Configuration
The primary target is: $ARGUMENTS
If no target was provided, ask the user:
What is the primary target domain for this bug bounty hunt? Examples:
example.com,*.example.com
Then gather the required program details interactively:
I need the bug bounty program details to stay in scope:
- Program scope — What domains/assets are in scope? Example:
*.example.com, api.example.com- Out-of-scope exclusions — What targets or areas are excluded? Example:
mail.example.com, third-party CDNs(or "None specified")- Program rules — Any specific rules or restrictions? Example:
No DoS, no social engineering, rate limit: 10 req/sec
Wait for the user to provide scope, exclusions, and rules before proceeding. Never test assets outside the confirmed scope.
Before you start:
- Confirm scope, out-of-scope, and program rules are set
- Ensure all MCP servers are healthy — run
make mcp-status
Mandatory Tool & Methodology Readiness
Complete this readiness pass before you start the execution plan — it is what keeps you from firing malformed commands at tools. This is Phase 0 for every blhackbox skill. Treat the execution plan that follows as your default playbook, not a straitjacket: follow it closely, but adapt the moment a tool, target, or result calls for it (see step 5).
- Inventory 100% of usable capabilities first.
- Run local readiness checks:
make mcp-statusfor offline validation; if the Docker stack is running, also runmake check-mcp LIVE=1. - Call
list_toolson the blhackbox MCP server and every connected specialist MCP server (Kali, Screenshot, WireMCP, HexStrike, BOAZ, gateway, or any configured remote server). - Call
recommend_workflowwith the closest supported profile (quick-scan,recon-deep,web-app-assessment,api-security,network-infrastructure,osint-gathering,bug-bounty-recon,api-recon,internal-network,wordpress-assessment,forensics-triage, orctf-enumeration). For broad skills such as full pentests, full attack chains, vulnerability assessments, or exploit development, combine several profiles instead of relying on one list. Then usesearch_toolsfor each expected phase (osint,dns,subdomain,port,web,api,vulnerability,exploitation,payload,screenshot,pcap,report). - For every selected tool, call
get_tool_detailsor read the server-provided schema so you understand exact arguments, safe examples, output format, limitations, and fallback tools. - Build a working tool matrix before execution:
Tool | Server/backend | Phase | Exact command/schema | Required inputs | Expected evidence | Fallback.
- Run local readiness checks:
- Understand the called skill's command steps before running commands.
- Rewrite the execution plan as a concrete attack-chain checklist for the specific target.
- Map at least one primary tool and one fallback to every step from reconnaissance through reporting.
- Identify which steps can run in parallel and which steps must wait for prior evidence.
- Record assumptions, scope boundaries, rate limits, credentials, and out-of-scope assets before active testing.
- Select the correct security framework overlays.
- Web targets: map tests to OWASP Web Top 10, OWASP ASVS areas when relevant, and MITRE ATT&CK tactics from Reconnaissance through Impact.
- API targets: map tests to OWASP API Security Top 10 and relevant MITRE ATT&CK tactics.
- Network/internal targets: map to MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise tactics and service-specific hardening baselines.
- Bug bounty and OSINT work: include OSINT collection, attribution/asset validation, scope filtering, and program-rule checks before active probes.
- Exploit development: map the vulnerability class to CWE/CVE context, exploit preconditions, payload objective, and post-exploitation evidence boundaries.
- Execute as a complete chain, not isolated commands.
- Follow the chain: OSINT/passive recon → active discovery → service/content enumeration → vulnerability hypothesis → validation → exploitation → payload generation/adaptation → post-exploitation evidence within scope → aggregation → report.
- Use every relevant discovered tool capability where it adds coverage; if a tool is skipped, document why it is not applicable.
- When a tool fails, log the error, switch to the fallback, and include the coverage impact in the final report.
- Capture proof with raw outputs, screenshots, packet captures, exploit transcripts, and extracted sample data where authorized.
- Adapt, recover, and think — never follow the plan off a cliff.
The phases below are a proven default sequence, not a rigid script. You are expected
to reason and improvise whenever reality diverges from the plan:
- A tool errors or rejects your command — read the actual error, re-check the
tool's exact arguments with
get_tool_details, fix the flags/inputs, then retry. Most failures are wrong syntax, a missing input, or an unescaped value. Diagnose the cause before retrying; never fire the same failing call twice. - A tool needs an API key or token you don't have (e.g. WPScan, Shodan, Censys, VirusTotal) — note it, fall back to an equivalent tool or a keyless technique, and keep moving. Never stall waiting for a key; log it in the issues report and proceed.
- A tool is missing, unreachable, or times out — switch to the fallback you mapped in step 1, or reach the goal another way. Documented coverage gaps are acceptable; getting stuck is not.
- Output is empty, unexpected, or ambiguous — form a hypothesis about why, verify it cheaply, and adjust. Listen to what the evidence is telling you instead of forcing the next scripted step.
- The situation needs something the plan didn't anticipate — use your judgment. Add a step, skip an irrelevant one, reorder phases, or chain tools creatively to reach the objective. Briefly record why you deviated. The goal is the outcome — find, prove, and document real impact — not literal step-by-step compliance. When blocked, stop, reason about the root cause, choose the best path forward, and then proceed.
- A tool errors or rejects your command — read the actual error, re-check the
tool's exact arguments with
Execution Plan
Step 1: Scope Mapping & Asset Discovery
- Subdomain enumeration — Discover subdomains through multiple passive sources
- Deep passive enumeration — Additional tools for maximum coverage
- Domain intelligence — WHOIS lookups
- DNS enumeration and brute-forcing
- OSINT harvesting — Harvest emails, names, and subdomains
- AI OSINT — OSINT and intelligence analysis agents
Filter results against the program scope — discard out-of-scope assets.
Step 2: Alive Check & Service Discovery
For each in-scope subdomain:
- Service detection — Port scanning targeting web service ports
- Technology fingerprinting — Identify web technologies
- WAF detection
- Web server fingerprinting
- Exploit search — Find exploits matching discovered services
Step 3: High-Value Target Identification
Prioritize: dev/staging/admin/api/internal subdomains, non-standard ports, older tech stacks, login pages, API endpoints, file upload functionality.
Step 4: Vulnerability Hunting — High-Impact
A. Server-Side (Critical/High): SQL injection, XSS, parameter discovery, SSRF, RCE, auth bypass, exploit validation B. Access Control (High): IDOR, privilege escalation, broken access control on APIs C. Web Vulnerabilities (Medium-High): Directory discovery, path traversal, XSS (reflected/stored/DOM), CSRF, open redirects, information disclosure D. Configuration (Medium): Security headers, CORS, subdomain takeover
Step 5: Evidence Capture & Traffic Analysis
A. Screenshot Evidence: Vulnerability screenshots, element screenshots, before/after capture, annotated evidence B. Traffic Analysis: Packet capture, credential extraction, stream reconstruction
Step 6: CMS & Framework-Specific Testing
Step 7: Data Aggregation (REQUIRED)
- Call
get_payload_schema()thenaggregate_results(payload=...)
Step 8: Bug Bounty Report
For EACH vulnerability, provide in bug bounty format:
- Title — clear, descriptive
- Severity — Critical / High / Medium / Low (CVSS)
- Summary — root cause description
- Steps to Reproduce (MANDATORY) — numbered, exact, independently reproducible
- Proof of Concept (MANDATORY): exact payload/cURL, raw request/response, extracted data, annotated screenshots
- Impact — demonstrated with extracted data, not theoretical
- Affected Endpoint — exact URL, parameter, HTTP method
- Remediation — specific fix
- References — CVEs, CWEs, OWASP categories
Sort findings by severity (critical first) and potential bounty value.
Hunt Documentation (REQUIRED)
Write to output/reports/:
1. Hunt Log — hunt-log-<target>-DDMMYYYY.md
2. Issues & Errors Log — issues-log-<target>-DDMMYYYY.md
3. Evidence Index — evidence-index-<target>-DDMMYYYY.md
Guidelines
- Respect program scope — never test out-of-scope assets
- Respect rate limits — use reasonable scanning speeds
- Every finding MUST have a complete PoC with exploitation evidence and extracted data
- Exploit every finding fully — bounty programs reward demonstrated impact
- A report that says "SQLi found" gets N/A. "SQLi exploited, extracted user table" gets a bounty.
- PoC must be independently reproducible by the program's security team
- Populate
poc_steps,poc_payload, andevidencefields in everyVulnerabilityEntry
MCP Tool Quick Reference
Kali MCP — Exploit Search
searchsploit <service> <version>— Search ExploitDB for known exploitsmsfconsole -qx "search <service>; exit"— Search Metasploit modules- For complex exploitation requiring custom code, use the
/exploit-devskill
WireMCP — Traffic Analysis
capture_packets(interface="eth0", duration=30, filter="host <TARGET>")— Capture during exploitationextract_credentials(file_path="<pcap>")— Find cleartext credentials in trafficfollow_stream(file_path="<pcap>", stream_index=0)— Inspect TCP conversationsget_statistics(file_path="<pcap>")— Protocol distribution overview
Screenshot MCP — Evidence Capture
take_screenshot(url="http://<TARGET>/<page>")— Full page screenshot for PoCtake_element_screenshot(url="<url>", selector="<css>")— Capture specific DOM elements (XSS payloads, error messages)annotate_screenshot(screenshot_path="<path>", annotations='[{"type":"text","x":10,"y":10,"text":"VULN: <desc>","color":"red","size":18}]')— Label evidence
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.

