본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

web3-audit

Review DeFi smart contracts for ten classes of security flaws, including inconsistent accounting, missing permissions, and price manipulation. The skill helps prioritize audit targets and build Foundry tests that reproduce a finding and demonstrate its impact.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Smart contract security audit — 10 DeFi bug classes (accounting desync, access control, incomplete path, off-by-one, oracle, ERC4626, reentrancy, flash loan, signature replay, proxy), pre-dive kill signals (TVL < $500K etc), Foundry PoC template, grep patterns for each class, and real Immunefi paid examples. Use for any Solidity/Rust contract audit or when deciding whether a DeFi target is worth hunting.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Prioritize DeFi protocols for security review
  • Check related functions for inconsistent state updates
  • Review price feeds and vault accounting
  • Build a Foundry test to demonstrate a finding

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md23.4 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

WEB3 SMART CONTRACT AUDIT

10 bug classes. Pre-dive kill signals. Foundry PoC template. Real paid examples.


PRE-DIVE KILL SIGNALS (check BEFORE any code review)

ZKsync lesson: $322M TVL + OZ audit + 750K LOC + 5 sessions = 0 findings. Large well-audited bridges are extremely hard.

  1. TVL < $500K → max payout capped too low for effort
  2. 2+ top-tier audits (Halborn, ToB, Cyfrin, OpenZeppelin) on simple protocol → bugs already found
  3. Protocol < 500 lines, single A→B→C flow → minimal attack surface
  4. Formula: max_realistic_payout = min(10% × TVL, program_cap) — if < $10K, skip

Soft kill: OZ/ToB/Cyfrin audit on current version + codebase > 500K LOC → expect 40+ hours for maybe 1 finding. Only proceed if bounty floor > $50K AND you have protocol-specific expertise.

Target scoring (go if >= 6/10):

  • TVL > $10M: +2
  • Immunefi program with Critical >= $50K: +2
  • No top-tier audit on current version: +2
  • < 30 days since deploy: +1
  • Protocol you've hunted before: +1
  • Source code + natspec comments: +1
  • Upgradeable proxies: +1

THE ONE RULE

"Read ALL sibling functions. If vote() has a modifier, check poke(), reset(), harvest(). The missing modifier on the sibling IS the bug."

This single rule explains 19% of all Critical findings.


1. ACCOUNTING STATE DESYNCHRONIZATION

#1 Critical bug class — 28% of all Criticals on Immunefi.

What It Is

Two state variables supposed to stay in sync. One code path updates A but forgets B. Later code reads both and makes decisions based on stale B.

Real Value = A - B
If A updated but B isn't → Real Value appears larger → phantom value

Root Cause Patterns

Variant 1: Phantom Yield (Yeet protocol — 35 duplicate reports)

function startUnstake(uint256 amount) external {
    totalSupply -= amount;  // decremented BEFORE transfer
    // aToken.balanceOf(this) still reflects old value
    // yieldAmount = aToken.balanceOf - totalSupply = phantom yield
}

Variant 2: Fast Path Skips State Update (Alchemix V3)

function claimRedemption(uint256 tokenId) external {
    if (transmuter.balance >= amount) {
        transmuter.transfer(user, amount);
        _burn(tokenId);
        return;  // EARLY RETURN — cumulativeEarmarked, _redemptionWeight, totalDebt never updated
    }
    // Slow path: updates all state vars correctly
    alchemist.redeem(...);
}

Variant 3: Update Happens in Wrong Order (Alchemix)

function deposit(uint256 amount) external {
    _shares = (amount * totalShares) / totalAssets;  // calculated BEFORE deposit
    totalAssets += amount;   // assets added AFTER shares calculated → wrong rate
}

Grep Patterns

# Find all accounting variables
grep -rn "totalSupply\|totalShares\|totalAssets\|totalDebt\|cumulativeReward\|rewardPerShare" contracts/

# Find all early returns in claim/redeem functions
grep -rn "\breturn\b" contracts/ -B3 | grep -B3 "if\b"

# For each early return: which state updates in normal path are skipped?

2. ACCESS CONTROL

#2 Critical — 19% of Criticals. $953M lost in 2024 alone.

Variant 1: Missing Modifier on Sibling Function

function vote(uint256 tokenId) external onlyNewEpoch(tokenId) {  // guarded
function reset(uint256 tokenId) external onlyNewEpoch(tokenId) { // guarded
function poke(uint256 tokenId) external {                         // NO GUARD → infinite FLUX inflation
}

Variant 2: Wrong Check (Existence vs Ownership)

function split(uint256 tokenId, uint256 amount) external {
    _requireOwned(tokenId);  // checks if token EXISTS, not if caller OWNS it
    _burn(tokenId);
    _mint(msg.sender, amount);  // attacker steals tokens they don't own
}

Variant 3: Silent Modifier (if vs require)

// VULNERABLE — non-admin silently gets through:
modifier onlyAdmin() {
    if (msg.sender == admin) {
        _;  // body only executes for admin, but non-admin doesn't revert
    }
}
// CORRECT: require(msg.sender == admin, "Not admin"); _;

Variant 4: Uninitialized Proxy

function initialize(address _owner) public {  // MISSING: initializer modifier
    owner = _owner;  // anyone can call → become owner
}
// Fix: constructor() { _disableInitializers(); }

Grep Patterns

# Find sibling function families — do ALL have the same modifier set?
grep -rn "function vote\|function poke\|function reset\|function update\|function claim\|function harvest" contracts/ -A2

# Ownership check: existence vs ownership?
grep -rn "_requireOwned\|ownerOf\|_isApprovedOrOwner\|_checkAuthorized" contracts/ -B5

# Silent modifiers
grep -rn "modifier\b" contracts/ -A8 | grep -B3 "if (" | grep -v "require\|revert"

# Uninitialized initializer
grep -rn "function initialize\b" contracts/ -A3
grep -rn "_disableInitializers()" contracts/

Real Paid Examples

ProtocolPayoutBug
Wormhole$10MUninitialized UUPS proxy → anyone calls initialize()
ZeroLendn/asplit() uses existence check, not ownership check
Alchemixn/apoke() missing onlyNewEpoch → infinite FLUX inflation
Parity$150M frozenNo access control on initWallet() in library

3. INCOMPLETE CODE PATH

#3 Critical — 17% of Criticals.

The Function Family Comparison Test

1. List all state changes in function A (deposit/place/create)
2. List all state changes in function B (withdraw/update/cancel)
3. For each state change in A: does B have the corresponding reverse?
4. For each token transfer in A: does B have the corresponding refund?
If A does X but B doesn't do the reverse of X → BUG.

Variant 1: Update Function Missing Refund (ThunderNFT)

function place_order(OrderInput calldata order) external {
    token.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), order.price);  // takes tokens
    orders[orderId] = order;
}
function update_order(OrderInput calldata updatedOrder) external {
    // BUG: NO REFUND for sell orders when price decreases → tokens permanently stuck
    orders[orderId] = updatedOrder;
}

Variant 2: Partial Fill Token Stuck (Plume)

function swapForETH(uint256 amountIn) external {
    token.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amountIn);
    uint256 filled = dex.swap(amountIn);  // partial fill possible
    _refundExcessEth(amountIn - filled);  // BUG: refunds ETH only, not ERC20
}

Variant 3: mint() Bypasses Check That deposit() Has (MetaPool)

function deposit(uint256 assets, address receiver) public override {
    shares = _deposit(assets, receiver);  // includes receipt validation
}
function mint(uint256 shares, address receiver) public override {
    assets = convertToAssets(shares);
    _mint(receiver, shares);  // MISSING: _deposit() validation → mints without receiving assets
}

Grep Patterns

grep -rn "function place_\|function create_\|function add_\|function open_" contracts/ -A5
grep -rn "function update_\|function modify_\|function cancel_" contracts/ -A5
grep -rn "safeApprove\b" contracts/    # safeApprove without zero-reset before
grep -rn "delete\b" contracts/ -B5 -A5  # delete before operation completes
grep -rn "function deposit\|function mint\|function withdraw\|function redeem" contracts/ -A10

4. OFF-BY-ONE & BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

#4 High — 22% of Highs. Single character change. Massive impact.

Root Cause

// VeChain Stargate — post-exit reward drain:
function _claimableDelegationPeriods(address delegator) internal view returns (uint256) {
    if (endPeriod > nextClaimablePeriod) {  // BUG: should be >=
        return 0;  // exited users get nothing
    }
    return nextClaimablePeriod - lastClaimedPeriod;  // rewards for period AFTER exit
}

Mental Test for Every Comparison

For every if (A > B): "What happens when A == B?" Is that correct?

6 Boundary Locations to Check

  1. Period/Epoch boundaries: > vs >= at period end
  2. Time-based locks: does block.timestamp == deadline lock or unlock?
  3. Loop break conditions: break with > vs >=
  4. Array index boundaries: i <= array.length (should be i < array.length)
  5. Amount/balance boundaries: >= amount allows exact full withdrawal?
  6. Rounding/precision: can any input produce 0 output that should be non-zero?

Grep Patterns

# Boundaries in comparisons
grep -rn "Period\|Epoch\|Round\|Deadline\|period\|epoch\|deadline" contracts/ -A3 | grep "[<>][^=]"

# Loop breaks
grep -rn "\bbreak\b" contracts/ -B10

# Off-by-one in array access
grep -rn "\.length\s*-\s*1\|i\s*<=\s*.*\.length\b" contracts/

5. ORACLE / PRICE MANIPULATION

12% of all reports. Largest individual payouts. $117M Mango, $70M Curve.

Bug A: Missing Staleness Check (most common)

// VULNERABLE:
(, int256 price,,,) = priceFeed.latestRoundData();
return uint256(price);  // If Chainlink node goes down, stale price returned indefinitely

// CORRECT:
(, int256 price,, uint256 updatedAt,) = priceFeed.latestRoundData();
require(block.timestamp - updatedAt <= MAX_PRICE_AGE, "Stale price");
require(price > 0, "Invalid price");

Bug B: Missing Confidence Interval (Pyth)

// VULNERABLE:
PythStructs.Price memory p = pyth.getPriceUnsafe(priceFeed);
return p.price;  // ignores p.conf (confidence interval)

// CORRECT:
require(p.conf * 10 <= uint64(p.price), "Price too uncertain");
// conf > 10% of price = untrustworthy

Bug C: TWAP Too Short (flash loan manipulatable)

// VULNERABLE: 60-second TWAP
uint32[] memory secondsAgos = new uint32[](2);
secondsAgos[0] = 60; secondsAgos[1] = 0;
// Flash loan can shift price for entire 60s window

// CORRECT: 1800s minimum TWAP (30 min)

Bug D: Single-Source Oracle

// VULNERABLE: only Uniswap spot price
uint price = getUniswapSpotPrice(token);  // flash loan manipulatable

// CORRECT: Chainlink primary, Uniswap TWAP as fallback, require close agreement

Grep Patterns

# Missing staleness check
grep -rn "latestRoundData" contracts/ -A5 | grep -v "updatedAt\|timestamp"

# Pyth price usage — confidence interval checked?
grep -rn "getPriceUnsafe\|getPrice\b" contracts/ -A8 | grep -v "conf\|confidence"

# TWAP windows — short TWAP flag
grep -rn "secondsAgo\|TWAP\|cardinality" contracts/ -A5

6. ERC4626 VAULT ATTACKS

Exchange Rate Manipulation (near-empty vault)

// VULNERABLE — first depositor attack:
// 1. Attacker deposits 1 wei → gets 1 share
// 2. Attacker donates large amount directly (transfer, not deposit)
// 3. Exchange rate: 1 share = (1 + donation) assets
// 4. Victim deposits → rounds down to 0 shares → free donation to attacker

// CORRECT: virtual shares (OpenZeppelin v4.9+)
function _decimalsOffset() internal view virtual override returns (uint8) {
    return 9;  // add 1e9 virtual shares + assets to prevent manipulation
}

ERC4626 Transfer (moves shares but not stake/lock records)

// VULNERABLE: shares transferred, but lock records stay with original owner
// → shares stuck, can't redeem → permanent freeze (Belong pattern)
function transfer(address to, uint256 amount) external override {
    _transfer(msg.sender, to, amount);  // moves shares
    // MISSING: transfer lock record from msg.sender to `to`
}

Grep Patterns

grep -rn "function transfer\|function transferFrom" contracts/ -A15
grep -rn "function deposit\|function mint\|function withdraw\|function redeem" contracts/ -A10

7. REENTRANCY

2016–present. CEI pattern prevents it. Still found in DeFi.

Variants

  • Single-function: attacker re-enters same function before state updated
  • Cross-function: re-enters a sibling function with stale state
  • Cross-contract: re-enters via a callback to another protocol
  • Read-only: re-enters a view function that returns stale data used by attacker

Root Cause Pattern

// VULNERABLE (effects after interaction):
function withdraw(uint256 amount) external {
    require(balances[msg.sender] >= amount);
    (bool success,) = msg.sender.call{value: amount}("");  // INTERACTION first
    require(success);
    balances[msg.sender] -= amount;  // EFFECT after → reentrancy window
}

// CORRECT (CEI — Checks, Effects, Interactions):
function withdraw(uint256 amount) external {
    require(balances[msg.sender] >= amount);  // CHECK
    balances[msg.sender] -= amount;            // EFFECT
    (bool success,) = msg.sender.call{value: amount}("");  // INTERACTION last
    require(success);
}

Grep Patterns

# External calls before state updates
grep -rn "\.call{value\|safeTransfer\|transfer(" contracts/ -B10 | grep -v "require\|revert"

# Missing nonReentrant modifier on critical functions
grep -rn "function withdraw\|function redeem\|function claim" contracts/ -A2 | grep -v "nonReentrant"

# Storage slot for reentrancy guard
grep -rn "nonReentrant\|ReentrancyGuard\|_notEntered" contracts/

8. FLASH LOAN ATTACKS

Oracle Manipulation via Flash Loan

// Attack flow:
// 1. Borrow $100M from Aave flash loan
// 2. Dump token in Uniswap pool → crash spot price
// 3. Protocol reads Uniswap spot → undercollateralized loans accepted
// 4. Borrow max against cheap collateral
// 5. Repay flash loan, keep profits

Price Oracle Sanity Checks (what to look for)

grep -rn "getReserves\|getAmountsOut\|slot0\b" contracts/ -A5
# spot price from reserves = manipulatable with flash loan
# slot0 = Uniswap V3 spot price = manipulatable

9. SIGNATURE REPLAY

Missing Nonce

// VULNERABLE:
function permit(address owner, address spender, uint256 value,
                uint256 deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s) external {
    bytes32 hash = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(owner, spender, value, deadline));
    // MISSING: nonce not included → same signature usable multiple times
    require(ecrecover(hash, v, r, s) == owner);
}

Missing Chain ID

// VULNERABLE: signature valid on mainnet AND testnet AND all forks
bytes32 hash = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(params));
// MISSING: block.chainid not in hash → works on any chain

Grep Patterns

grep -rn "ecrecover\|ECDSA\.recover" contracts/ -B20
# Check: does the signed hash include nonce + chainId + contract address?

grep -rn "nonce\|_nonces\|nonces\[" contracts/

10. PROXY / UPGRADE ISSUES

Storage Collision

// Implementation and proxy share storage layout
// Proxy slot 0: _owner
// Implementation slot 0: _initialized
// → writing to _initialized overwrites _owner

Uninitialized Implementation

// If implementation can be initialized directly → anyone becomes owner of implementation
// Attack: call initialize() on implementation contract → call upgradeTo() → replace logic

delegatecall to User-Controlled Address

function execute(address target, bytes calldata data) external onlyOwner {
    target.delegatecall(data);  // target is validated, but what if owner is compromised?
}

Grep Patterns

# UUPS initialization protection
grep -rn "function initialize\b\|_disableInitializers\|initializer" contracts/

# Delegate call
grep -rn "delegatecall\b" contracts/ -B3 -A5

# Storage layout — proxy uses EIP-1967 slots?
grep -rn "0x360894\|EIP1967\|_IMPLEMENTATION_SLOT" contracts/

FOUNDRY POC TEMPLATE

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

import "forge-std/Test.sol";
import "../src/VulnerableContract.sol";

contract ExploitTest is Test {
    VulnerableContract target;
    address attacker = makeAddr("attacker");
    address victim = makeAddr("victim");

    function setUp() public {
        // Fork mainnet at specific block
        vm.createSelectFork("mainnet", BLOCK_NUMBER);

        // Deploy or load target
        target = VulnerableContract(TARGET_ADDRESS);

        // Fund accounts
        deal(address(token), attacker, INITIAL_BALANCE);
        deal(address(token), victim, VICTIM_BALANCE);
    }

    function test_exploit() public {
        console.log("Attacker balance before:", token.balanceOf(attacker));

        vm.startPrank(attacker);

        // Step 1: Setup conditions
        // Step 2: Execute exploit
        // Step 3: Verify impact

        vm.stopPrank();

        console.log("Attacker balance after:", token.balanceOf(attacker));
        assertGt(token.balanceOf(attacker), INITIAL_BALANCE, "Exploit failed");
    }
}

Key Foundry Cheatcodes

vm.prank(address)           // next call from address
vm.startPrank(address)      // all calls from address until stopPrank()
vm.deal(address, amount)    // set ETH balance
deal(token, address, amount) // set ERC20 balance
vm.warp(timestamp)          // set block.timestamp
vm.roll(blockNumber)        // set block.number
vm.createSelectFork("mainnet", blockNumber)  // fork mainnet
vm.expectRevert(bytes)      // next call should revert
vm.label(address, "name")   // label for trace output
vm.assume(condition)        // fuzz: discard inputs where false

Running Tests

# Run specific test
forge test --match-test test_exploit -vvvv

# Run with fork
forge test --match-test test_exploit -vvvv --fork-url $MAINNET_RPC

# Gas report
forge test --gas-report

# Coverage
forge coverage --report summary

Related Skills & Chains

  • meme-coin-audit — When the target is a meme coin / SPL token rather than a DeFi protocol. Workflow primitive: pre-dive kill signals diverge — this skill's "TVL < $500K skip" doesn't apply to meme coins where the rug check (mint authority, freeze authority, LP lock) is the entire audit; route to meme-coin-audit instead.
  • triage-validation — When a contract finding is ready to be filed on Immunefi. Workflow primitive: Immunefi has its own report format, but the impact-validated, chain-end-to-end discipline of triage-validation still applies; run the 7Q gate against the Foundry PoC before submitting.
  • report-writing — When writing the Immunefi report body. Workflow primitive: report-writing's Immunefi template (with Foundry PoC, root cause code snippet, quantified economic impact) is the body skeleton this skill's findings feed into.
  • offensive-osint — When auditing a protocol's off-chain attack surface (frontend, admin API, RPC gateways). Workflow primitive: on-chain audit is this skill's job; any web2 component of the protocol (web-frontend, admin panel, indexer API) routes to offensive-osint for recon.
  • bb-methodology — When deciding whether to dive at all. Workflow primitive: PART 0 of bb-methodology confirms engagement (web3 bug bounty / private audit / smart-contract review); this skill's pre-dive kill signals replace the standard scoring rubric for that engagement type.

Operator Notes (Claude-BugHunter)

Engagement-derived + 2026-specific additions to the vendored foundation. Wisdom from real authorized engagements + Phase 2 verification across this repo's 31+ skill-area live tests. The upstream content covers the WHAT; this layer covers the WHEN-IT-WORKS-vs-WHEN-IT-DOESN'T.

Bug classes still paying in 2026

Flash-loan attacks remain top-paid on Immunefi (top 5 in 2024-2026 by bounty). The economic primitive — borrow $50M, manipulate price oracle, drain pool, repay — keeps reappearing because new protocols keep shipping with composability assumptions that don't hold under flash-loaned imbalance.

Reentrancy IS still paying because new protocols keep shipping with ERC-777 / hooks / callbacks. Don't assume the class is dead — the 2023-2025 paid corpus contains 40+ reentrancy bugs against post-Checks-Effects-Interactions codebases (cross-function reentrancy, read-only reentrancy via view functions called during state-mid-flight).

Oracle manipulation: still paid heavily but harder. Most projects use Chainlink price feeds now; the attack target is the SECONDARY oracle most projects also use (TWAP from a low-liquidity Uniswap V2 pair, the protocol's own internal oracle, a stale fallback path). Audit the failover chain, not just the primary feed.

What's new since the vendored content was written

  • EIP-1153 (transient storage) — introduced in 2024. New reentrancy classes: transient-storage reads cached across the same transaction can desync from persistent storage. Audit any tload/tstore usage for read-after-external-call.
  • EIP-7702 (Pectra hard fork 2025) — added EOA-to-smart-account upgrades. New ATO-like primitives via re-delegation: an EOA signed-once can delegate to a contract that the attacker controls, then signature replay across delegations.
  • Account abstraction (ERC-4337 bundlers) — paymaster sponsorship abuse and bundler griefing. Paymaster contracts that don't enforce strict sender allowlists drain on first call.
  • ZK-rollup bridge bugs — proof-replay across rollups, off-chain prover compromise, sequencer censorship leading to forced-inclusion edge cases.
  • LST/LRT depeg dynamics — liquid-staking and liquid-restaking tokens that assume 1:1 peg under loss conditions; oracle assumes peg, market reflects depeg, liquidation logic breaks.

Tool stack for 2026

Foundry remains the test framework. forge test --gas-report --debug for invariant testing; forge fuzz for property-based testing; forge inspect for storage-layout audits. Slither + Echidna for static + fuzz. Mythril for symbolic execution on smaller contracts. tenderly.co for forking + simulation (best UX for replicating attacks against mainnet state).

For Solana: anchor framework, sealevel-attacks corpus (curated PoCs by anchor maintainers), soteria-sec / sec3 scanner. For Move (Aptos, Sui): move-prover, aptos-cli aptos move test.

For cross-chain: hyperlane and LayerZero each have audit-tooling repos; bridge bugs require simulating both endpoints, not just one.

Where pre-dive kill signals matter

TVL under $500K isn't worth the audit time unless the bounty floor is high. Audit firm already covered it = low ROI unless you find what they missed — look at the audit-report scope-exclusion section for what they EXPLICITLY didn't audit (oracles, governance, off-chain components, frontend, the admin path).

Multisig signers > 5 + timelock > 48h = low rug-pull risk; if your finding requires team-malicious assumptions, it's low-impact and likely out of scope per Immunefi's "centralization risk" exclusion. Read the program brief — most Immunefi programs explicitly downgrade or reject findings that assume admin malice.

Reporting discipline

Immunefi requires Foundry PoC. Submission without PoC is auto-rejected. Submission with a PoC that requires manual setup ("first deploy this, then call that") usually gets downgraded — the PoC should be a single forge test invocation that proves the impact, with explicit assertEq on the drained balance / minted token / corrupted state.

Severity claims must use Immunefi's severity matrix exactly; don't invent severities. The matrix gates on direct economic loss percentage of TVL — a critical against a $500K protocol pays differently than a critical against a $500M one. Read the program's specific severity assignment before claiming Critical.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Inspect Android apps for embedded credentials, internal API addresses, and components exposed to other apps. The skill guides APK acquisition, code inspection, and runtime traffic analysis to support a mobile security assessment.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Inventory Android apps included in a security assessment
  • Check APKs for embedded credentials and internal API addresses
  • Review components that other apps can invoke
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Guide bug bounty work from asset discovery to validation and reporting, while resolving local locations of security tools, wordlists, and cloned projects. It covers web and AI security testing with an emphasis on demonstrated impact.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Locate installed security tools and wordlists
  • Plan reconnaissance within a program's scope
  • Investigate related weaknesses and their combined impact
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Organize a bug bounty investigation from reconnaissance through reporting. The skill helps choose a focused objective, identify the current phase, select relevant techniques and tools, and distinguish reproducible security impact from misleading test results.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Setting objectives at the start of an investigation
  • Choosing the next step when testing stalls
  • Replanning after switching targets
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Guide bug bounty work from checking authorized scope and discovering assets to testing web and AI features. Validate practical impact, investigate related weaknesses, and organize reproducible evidence into a vulnerability report.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Planning research for a new bug bounty target
  • Reviewing source code for security weaknesses
  • Testing chatbot and AI feature security
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Prepare Bugcrowd submissions with accurate vulnerability categories, evidence-based severity requests, and explanations of program scope. Structure references between related reports, document QA testing conditions, and draft responses when a finding is downgraded or considered out of scope.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Choose a suitable Bugcrowd vulnerability category
  • Explain a severity request using demonstrated impact
  • Respond to out-of-scope decisions
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Assess what discovered cloud credentials allow across AWS, Azure, GCP, and Kubernetes. The skill guides identity checks, permission review, and paths to higher privileges, then helps document impact, activity, and cleanup within the engagement's agreed scope.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Assess permissions granted by discovered cloud credentials
  • Review role trust and access across cloud accounts
  • Check permissions assigned to anonymous Cognito identities
elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter5.2천2026년 10월 19일 업데이트

elementalsouls의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고