Install
$ agentstack add skill-pwnote-skills-pwnote-bug-bounty ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Bug Bounty Workflow
Reference for running a bug bounty engagement end-to-end: program intake, recon, vulnerability classes, report writing, and triage disputes. Output should be structured so it can be pasted directly into a pwnote engagement file (see the pwnote-engagement-file skill if present) — findings map to the findings array, recon steps map to docs/blocks.
1. Program Intake
When given a program's scope page (or a pasted policy), extract into a structured note:
| Field | Notes | |---|---| | In-scope assets | domains, IP ranges, app names, mobile app IDs, source repos | | Out-of-scope | explicit exclusions — always check for staging/subdomains carved out | | Reward table | severity → payout, so you can prioritize effort against expected value | | Special rules | rate limits, no-automated-scanning clauses, social engineering restrictions, disclosure timeline requirements | | Safe harbor language | confirm it exists before doing anything invasive |
Always re-read scope before starting active testing — programs change scope frequently and testing out-of-scope assets voids safe harbor.
2. Recon Workflow
Standard funnel, in order:
- Asset discovery — subdomain enumeration (passive + active), ASN/IP range expansion, cloud bucket discovery
- Live host probing — resolve + HTTP probe, screenshot triage for anomalies
- Tech fingerprinting — stack identification to prioritize known-CVE-prone components
- Content/endpoint discovery — JS file parsing for endpoints/secrets, historical URL sources (archive snapshots), directory brute-forcing within scope/rate limits
- Asset triage — rank by attack surface (auth surfaces, file upload, admin panels, API endpoints with IDs in the path) rather than testing everything uniformly
Log each recon step as a command-output or host block per target so the trail is reproducible later for the report.
3. Vulnerability Class Playbooks
Keep class-specific methodology in references/ rather than inline here — load only the relevant one:
references/vuln-classes.md— IDOR/BOLA, SSRF, auth/session bypass, business logic abuse, race conditions: what to check for and how to structure the finding, at a methodology level (not payload cookbooks)references/report-templates.md— per-platform report formatting differences (H1 vs Bugcrowd vs Intigriti vs YesWeHack)
4. Report Writing
Every report needs, regardless of platform:
- Title — specific and severity-signaling ("IDOR on
/api/v1/orders/{id}allows viewing other users' orders", not "IDOR vulnerability") - Summary — one paragraph, plain language, what an attacker can do
- Steps to reproduce — numbered, minimal, reproducible by someone with zero context
- Impact — concrete, tied to the program's asset (data exposure scope, account takeover chain, financial impact)
- PoC — request/response pairs or a short script; redact any real user data
- Remediation — specific enough to be actionable, not "add input validation"
- CVSS — vector + score if the program asks for it; be conservative, don't inflate
Use references/report-templates.md for the platform-specific field layout.
5. Triage & Dispute Handling
If a program pushes back (duplicate claim, N/A, severity downgrade):
- Ask for the duplicate report reference/timestamp before conceding — programs sometimes cite dupes that don't actually match your finding's root cause
- If severity is downgraded, restate impact in terms of the program's own asset criticality rather than re-arguing CVSS abstractly
- Keep disputes factual and low-heat; escalation to platform mediation is a last resort, not a first move
6. Output Mapping (pwnote)
When generating structured output for a pwnote import:
- One
findingobject per confirmed vuln (title, severity, cvssScore, cvssVector, cwe, affectedAssets, description, poc, remediation, references, status) - Recon steps as
host/command-outputblocks in a01_Recondoc - Exploitation chain as
code/http-requestblocks in a02_Exploitationdoc - Use a
topologyorkillchainboard if the finding involves chaining multiple assets/creds
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: Pwnote
- Source: Pwnote/skills
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.