Evidence Hygiene (Grade A)经过安全测试的 Claude AI 测试安全技能。A级。针对漏洞奖励提交的证据捕获与 PoC 红化规范：cookie 红化协议（哪些字段需要掩码，预览注释）

Why this exists?

Most bug-hunting Claude setups are either too generic (one big "security" prompt) or too fragmented (you bookmark 30 disclosed reports and re-read them every engagement). Neither scales past the second target. This bundle was built and validated through authorized engagements that exposed different capability gaps: Bug-bounty engagement — surfaced four gaps a starter 3-skill stack could not close: 1. No hypothesis discipline — drafts written before validation → wasted hours, hurt validity ratio 2. No per-program reporting tactics — VRT defaults auto-downgraded P3-worthy findings to P4 3. No engagement coordination — findings, evidence, and submission IDs scattered across folders 4. No evidence hygiene — screenshots leaked cookies and victim PII External red-team engagement — exposed five additional gaps that bug-bounty defaults made worse: 1. Conservative defaults retracted real findings — WAPT mindset stopped tests early on defended targets where red-team continuation would have surfaced bypass chains → redteam-mindset 2. No mid-engagement situational awareness — client SOC patched confirmed SQLi within 30 min; external attacker locked 14 accounts during a live test session — both invisible without explicit detection methodology → mid-engagement-ir-detection 3. No enterprise-platform attack chains — M365 + Entra ID, on-prem SharePoint, Cisco SSL VPN, vCenter, and 7 Android APKs all needed current 2024-2026 CVE knowledge and platform-specific tradecraft → m365-entra-attack

Asked by Esther Adeyemi · Sep 25, 2025

Why your model switched mid-session?

Separate from refusals, and easy to miss. On Opus 5, a narrow set of higher-risk cyber requests — Anthropic names exploit generation, binary-based vulnerability scanning and penetration testing — fall back to Opus 4.8 rather than being refused. You get a notice and the response is labelled with the model that answered, but in a long agentic run that is easy to scroll past, so it can look like Opus 5 quietly got worse. See why Claude switched models. What to do depends on what you are actually doing: | Situation | What helps | |---|---| | Auditing your own code — reviewing a repo you own for defects | Say so. "Defensive review of my own repo", "check this against the OWASP Top 10", "secure refactor to remediate" describe the work accurately and read as remediation. This is not a workaround; the work genuinely is defensive. | | Authorized offensive work — live engagement, PoC for a bounty submission | This is what the bundle is for, and the supported route is CVP. Do not reword an offensive engagement to look defensive to get past a classifier — enroll instead. | | You just want the switching off | Settings → Capabilities disables automatic model switching. | /hunt states the engagement frame (authorized, scope-bounded, remediable finding) on its first turn for exactly this reason — engagement context belongs in the session explicitly, not implied.

Asked by Yelena Popova · Sep 17, 2025

How it works?

A 6-phase, non-linear workflow — recon → map & rank → hunt → validate → report — with scope enforced in code and a 7-Question Gate before anything is submitted. Two ways to drive it: Plain English — describe what you're testing and the relevant skill loads automatically. /hunt scaffold + cbh CLI — engagement-folder structure, state, and orchestration. → Usage guide & worked example · 6-phase architecture & skill-to-phase map · cbh CLI

Asked by Rasheed Osman · Jul 25, 2025

What's inside?

82 skills, auto-loaded by topic — no invocation by name. Coverage across the external attack surface: | Category | # | Examples | |---|---|---| | Web application hunting | 13 | XSS, SQLi, SSRF, IDOR, LFI, SSTI, XXE, CSRF, CORS, open-redirect | | Authentication & identity | 7 | auth-bypass, session, OAuth, SAML, MFA-bypass, ATO | | API & infrastructure | 15 | GraphQL, gRPC, WebSocket, API-misconfig, host-header, RCE | | Advanced & concurrency | 6 | race-condition, HTTP smuggling, deserialization, cache-poison | | Framework-specific | 4 | Next.js, Node.js, Laravel, Spring Boot | | Enterprise identity & cloud ★ | 3 | M365/Entra, Okta, cloud-IAM-deep | | Infrastructure & appliance ★ | 4 | VMware vCenter, enterprise VPN, SharePoint, ASP.NET/NTLM | | Red-team tradecraft ★ | 4 | redteam-mindset, APK pipeline, supply-chain recon, mid-engagement IR | | Recon & OSINT | 4 | web2-recon, offensive-osint, subdomain | | Workflow, reporting & specialized | 11 | methodology, triage-validation, evidence-hygiene, VRT-aware reporting | Full searchable catalog → docs/skills.md. Also ships 15 slash commands (/hunt, /recon, /report, …) and a deterministic engagement engine (engine/) that maps a target's attack surface and routes each finding to the skill that handles it.

Asked by Zofia Kaczmarek · Jul 24, 2025

What is this?

claude-bughunter is a drop-in skill bundle for the Claude Code skills system. Install once and Claude Code stops being a chatbot and starts behaving like a senior bug-hunting researcher or red-team operator: it knows the techniques, the chain templates, the VRT mappings, the platform CVE chains, and the hygiene — and it stays in scope. Four layers stack: Think — bb-methodology + redteam-mindset: the 5-phase non-linear workflow, critical-thinking framework, and red-team operator discipline. Hunt webapps — 48 hunt- skills curated from 681 disclosed HackerOne reports: per-class detection patterns, payloads, bypass tables, and chain templates. Hit the perimeter — enterprise platform chains (M365/Entra, Okta, vCenter, SSL-VPN appliances, SharePoint, cloud IAM): current 2024–2026 CVE chains + post-credential escalation. Ship it — triage-validation + reporting + evidence-hygiene: the 7-Question Gate, VRT-aware severity, OOS rebuttals, PII redaction, and red-team deliverables. All triggered automatically by topic — describe what you're testing in plain English and the relevant skill loads. No invocation by name.

Asked by Naomi Suzuki · Jun 23, 2025