Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

dnr-respond

Investigate an alert or suspicious identifier using logs and source code. Assess attack success, measure affected data and users, test the suspected flaw locally, and produce a response plan for human review and execution.

OriginalShow the original description

Incident response workup for a lead in hand — an alert, an IOC, or a /dnr-hunt finding. Scopes the lead across the logs, verdicts whether the attack succeeded, quantifies blast radius, confirms root cause in source with a local PoC, and writes a proposed (never executed) containment/remediation/recovery plan. Use when asked to "respond to this alert", "work this incident", "how bad is this", or "run dnr-respond". /dnr-hunt is the no-alert entry to the same track.

See how to install

Good for

  • Investigating a security alert
  • Measuring affected records and customers
  • Checking a suspected flaw with a local proof of concept
  • Preparing a containment and recovery plan

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md13.0 KB
  • README.md2.9 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

dnr-respond

Lead-in-hand incident response: take one concrete starting point and answer the four questions an incident commander needs, in order — what happened, did it succeed, how far did it go, and what do we do about it. The output is a verdict, a quantified blast radius, a root cause proven in source, and a response plan that is proposed, never executed.

Invoke with /dnr-respond <lead> [--logs dir] [--repo path] [--fresh].

The lead ($1) can be:

  • an incident id from the hunt's INCIDENTS.json (e.g. INC-2) — the /dnr-hunt handoff
  • an alert pasted from an alert queue (JSON line or prose)
  • an IOC: an IP, an account name, a route, a session identifier
  • free text ("a customer says their address was quoted in a phishing email")

Other arguments:

  • --logs = logs directory or dnr target directory (same resolution as /dnr-hunt; defaults to targets/dnrcanary if it exists, else cwd).
  • --repo = application source (defaults to the target's app/).
  • --fresh = ignore any checkpoint in the run dir's .dnr-respond-state/ and mint a new run dir.

Hard rules (shared with /dnr-hunt — the track's contract)

  1. Log evidence alone never confirms a vulnerability. confirmed_exploited requires log evidence + the flaw in source + a PoC fired locally this session. Otherwise the ceiling is suspected.
  2. Query, don't read. Never Read or cat a log file; wc/head/ tail to profile, grep/awk/sort/uniq/python3 to interrogate. Small files (alert queues, error logs under ~200 lines) may be read whole.
  3. Propose, never execute. No blocking, disabling, rotating, or config changes — in any environment, including the demo app. The plan names actions; humans execute them.
  4. Local only. PoCs fire at 127.0.0.1 against an instance you started. Never touch a remote host.
  5. Every number is a query result. "How many records" and "how many customers" get answered by pipelines run this session, never estimated.

Run directory and checkpointing

First action — establish the run directory, the same way /dnr-hunt does, but as a consumer. Let TARGET be the basename of the resolved --logs/target path (default targets/dnrcanary) and SCOPE that path.

  • Lead is INC-n (the /dnr-hunt handoff, or a second lead from a hunt you already started responding to): work the response into the investigation that incident lives in. {RUN} is the newest results/TARGET/<timestamp>/ directory that contains an INCIDENTS.json — find it with Bash, e.g. ls -1d results/TARGET/*/ | sort -r | while read d; do [ -f "$d/INCIDENTS.json" ] && echo "$d" && break; done. Do not call rundir for an INC-n lead — rundir mints a fresh empty dir once a prior /dnr-respond in that dir has completed, which would strand the incident's INCIDENTS.json in the old dir. Only if no run dir holds an INCIDENTS.json (you were handed INC-n but never ran the hunt) fall through to the rundir line below.
  • Any other lead (alert, IOC, free text): Bash python3 .claude/skills/_lib/checkpoint.py rundir results/TARGET --state .dnr-respond-state --scope "SCOPE" (append --fresh if it's in $ARGUMENTS). This adopts the newest run dir for the target if one exists, else mints a fresh results/TARGET/<timestamp>/.

That path is {RUN}; substitute the literal path everywhere below, and double-quote it (and SCOPE) in Bash.

Checkpoint mechanics are identical to /dnr-hunt, state dir {RUN}/.dnr-respond-state/, phases 0–4. When {RUN} already holds a completed .dnr-respond-state from an earlier lead, load reports complete and the rules below reset it cleanly — a second lead enriches the same INCIDENTS.json and writes its own RESPONSE-<lead>.md. On start: python3 .claude/skills/_lib/checkpoint.py load {RUN}/.dnr-respond-state — absent/complete/--fresh → reset and start at Phase 0; running with phase_done == N → read phase0.json…phaseN.json, resume at N+1. After each phase: Write payload to {RUN}/.dnr-respond-state/_chunk.tmp, then checkpoint.py save {RUN}/.dnr-respond-state <N> <name> --from {RUN}/.dnr-respond-state/_chunk.tmp. Never write progress.json directly; never pass payload via heredoc/stdin. After outputs: checkpoint.py done {RUN}/.dnr-respond-state 4.

Phase 0 — Parse the lead, locate inputs

  1. Resolve --logs (dnr target config or bare directory) and inventory log files (du, wc -l, head -2 each — identify formats and field positions). The corpus is expected to exist already — the target README covers generating it.
  2. Parse the lead into starting entities:
    • INC-n → read that entry from {RUN}/INCIDENTS.json (the run dir adopted above); its IPs, accounts, routes, and timeline rows are the seed set.
    • alert line → source IP, rule, path, timestamp.
    • IOC → the entity itself.
    • free text → extract the observables (who reported, what data, when); the seed set may start as just a route or a table name.
  3. State the working question in one sentence (e.g. "did 203.0.113.66's activity against /login succeed, and if not, what did?"). Everything in Phase 1 serves that question.

Checkpoint phase0.json: {"lead": ..., "lead_type": ..., "entities": {"ips": [], "accounts": [], "routes": [], "windows": []}, "question": ..., "logs_dir": ..., "repo": ..., "files": [...]}

Phase 1 — Scope: pull everything the entities touched

For each seed entity, extract its complete activity, then expand one ring:

  • Per IP: every request — time-ordered, with route, status, size, UA, and authenticated user. Summarize phases of behavior, don't paste hundreds of lines.
  • Per account: every login (from which IPs), every authenticated request. Compare against that account's historical pattern in the same corpus — new IP, new UA, new volume, new hours are all signal. (A new IP alone is baseline noise — users roam; combine it with volume, cadence, or what the session did next before treating it as a lead.)
  • Per route: who else hit it the same way in the window? One attacker found via an alert may not be the only one.
  • Ring expansion (once): entities discovered above join the set — the account an IP logged into, the second IP that touched the same account, the route a session pivoted to. Expand once, deliberately; /dnr-hunt's open-ended loop is the tool when scope keeps growing.
  • Correlate the error log and alert queue rows for all entities into one timeline.

Checkpoint phase1.json: {"activity": [{"entity", "summary", "first_seen", "last_seen", "requests", "key_lines": [...]}], "expanded_entities": [...], "timeline": [...]}

Phase 2 — Verdict and blast radius

Answer the working question with evidence on both sides:

  • Did it succeed? Status codes alone don't answer this — a 401 wall says no; 200s with anomalous sizes, error-then-success progressions, and data-shaped responses say yes. State the verdict and the discriminating evidence.
  • Blast radius, quantified. What data was reached: which routes/tables, how many records, over what time span, belonging to how many distinct users/customers. Each figure comes from a pipeline (count the exfil-page sizes, count the distinct ids walked, join walked ids to owners via the app's own data if available locally — running the target's deterministic seed_command early, before Phase 3, is fine).
  • Containment status check (read-only). Is the activity ongoing at the end of the corpus window, or did it stop? When was the last attacker action?
  • If the verdict is "did not succeed", the workup doesn't end — say what the attacker was trying and why it failed; that feeds the plan's hardening section and the ruled_out record.

Checkpoint phase2.json: {"verdict": ..., "succeeded": bool, "discriminators": [...], "blast_radius": {"data": ..., "records": N, "distinct_victims": N, "window": ...}, "ongoing": bool, "last_activity": ...}

Phase 3 — Root cause and PoC

Same bar as /dnr-hunt Phase 3–4:

  1. Read the implicated handler(s) in --repo; name the flaw (or the defense) at file/function precision; check sibling routes for the same flaw class.
  2. Seed and start the app locally per target config: seed_command / app_command are target-relative — run them with the target directory as cwd; launch in the background via a single command that prints the PID (the same python3 -c "...subprocess.Popen..." pattern /dnr-hunt Phase 4 shows, with the port override env var if the default port is busy). Fire the minimal PoC, record command + response excerpt, fire the negative PoC against defended routes, then kill <pid> (never by port or pattern).
  3. No runnable app → verdict ceiling is suspected, stated explicitly.

Checkpoint phase3.json: {"root_cause": {"file", "function", "mechanism"}, "poc": {"command", "status", "response_excerpt"}, "negative_poc": {...}, "siblings_checked": [...]}

Phase 4 — The response plan (PROPOSED, NEVER EXECUTED) and outputs

Write the plan to {RUN}/RESPONSE.md — or {RUN}/RESPONSE-<lead>.md (e.g. RESPONSE-INC-2.md) if a RESPONSE.md from a different lead already exists in the run dir; never silently overwrite another incident's plan. Sections, every action carrying what / why / risk-if-wrong:

  1. Verdict & summary — three sentences: what happened, did it succeed, how far it went.
  2. Timeline — the merged entity timeline from Phase 1.
  3. Containment (proposed) — block/deny candidates (IPs, sessions, tokens), accounts to suspend, routes to rate-limit or disable. For each: the evidence line that justifies it and what breaks if the call is wrong (e.g. blocking a NAT IP locks out legitimate users behind it).
  4. Eradication & remediation (proposed) — the code fix, described at file/function level, handed off as a /triage-compatible vuln entry; interim mitigations if the fix will take time.
  5. Recovery (proposed) — exactly which credentials rotate (the queried list, not "all users"), which customers get notified (the distinct-victim list from Phase 2), what monitoring confirms the attacker is out.
  6. Detection engineering (proposed) — the rules that would have caught this earlier, derived from what you actually used to find it: the discriminating queries from Phase 2 turned into alert logic (e.g. error-rate per source on a route; sequential-id access cadence; account-from-new-IP at volume). Note which existing alerts fired, which were noise, and what that says about the queue.
  7. Open questions — what this corpus cannot answer (earlier history, other log sources, whether stolen data was used elsewhere).

Then update {RUN}/INCIDENTS.json (same schema as /dnr-hunt; create it if absent): add or enrich this incident — verdict, quantified impact, root cause, PoC, timeline. Extra keys are fine — graders match on content, not structure. Negative outcomes go to ruled_out.

Mark complete (checkpoint.py done {RUN}/.dnr-respond-state 4) and point the user onward (substitute the literal {RUN} path):

  • for the fix, from inside {RUN}: /triage INCIDENTS.json --repo <repo> then /patch TRIAGE.json --repo <repo> — both write to the directory they're invoked from, so running them there lands the verdicts and patches beside the incidents
  • on a dnr target: python <target>/grade.py {RUN}/INCIDENTS.json to self-score (the user runs this)
  • a human reviews and executes (or rejects) each proposed action; nothing in RESPONSE.md has been done

Customizing beyond the demo

  • Feed it your real alert queue one alert at a time — the lead parser takes any JSON or prose alert; the method doesn't change.
  • Auth logs, CDN/WAF exports, and EDR threat events slot into Phase 1 as additional per-entity activity sources; keep the single merged timeline.
  • The Phase 4 plan template is the part most worth adapting to your org: map containment to your actual controls (WAF rules, IdP session revocation, feature flags) — still as proposals routed to the owning team, never as actions the agent takes.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

customize

FreeSummary

Adapt a C/C++ vulnerability pipeline to another language, target, or detection method. The workflow gathers requirements, proposes file changes for approval, updates the implementation, and validates it against a test target containing known bugs.

  • Adapt the pipeline for web application vulnerabilities
  • Plan a port for smart contract auditing
  • Change detection signals and report criteria
anthropics/defending-code-reference-harness7.6KUpdated Aug 7, 2026

dnr-hunt

FreeSummary

Hunt for signs of compromise in web and application logs without an initial alert. Establish normal activity, record investigative hypotheses, check source code, and reproduce issues locally before producing incident records and a report.

  • Hunting for compromise without an initial alert
  • Tracing related activity across application logs
  • Distinguishing attack attempts from successful exploitation
anthropics/defending-code-reference-harness7.6KUpdated Aug 7, 2026

patch

FreeSummary

Turn security findings into candidate code fixes with review results and summaries. Depending on the input, use independent source review or a pipeline with execution checks, then provide diffs for a person to review and apply.

  • Generating candidate fixes from triaged findings
  • Preparing diffs for the highest-priority vulnerabilities
  • Independently reviewing proposed security fixes
anthropics/defending-code-reference-harness7.6KUpdated Aug 7, 2026

quickstart

FreeSummary

Get started with vulnerability review through a guided practice target, from threat modeling to scanning and triage. Ask questions about the pipeline and receive answers grounded in its documentation and source, with references and a next command.

  • Learn the vulnerability review workflow
  • Try a first scan on the bundled practice target
  • Find commands with supporting documentation
anthropics/defending-code-reference-harness7.6KUpdated Aug 7, 2026

threat-model

FreeSummary

Build a threat model that identifies valuable assets, attack entry points, potential threats, and mitigation priorities. Use source code and past vulnerabilities, an interview with the application owner, or a combination of both.

  • Reviewing security risks during system design
  • Assessing an inherited codebase without its owner
  • Refining a code-based draft with the application owner
anthropics/defending-code-reference-harness7.6KUpdated Aug 7, 2026

triage

FreeSummary

Turn raw security findings into a ranked list for engineering review. Check claims against source code, merge duplicates, assess how feasible exploitation is, and assign component owners, with results in JSON and Markdown.

  • Validating security scanner findings
  • Merging duplicate findings across scans
  • Prioritizing a vulnerability backlog
anthropics/defending-code-reference-harness7.6KUpdated Aug 7, 2026

See all skills by anthropics

Report a problem with this skill