validate

A finding-validation command that applies a seven-question gate and four pre-submission checks before a bug-bounty report is written. It requires a clear request, observable result, real impact, cost, and program eligibility.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it on a suspected vulnerability before writing a report, supplying the endpoint, bug type, proof of concept, and target program.
Why use it?
It helps discard findings that cannot be reproduced, are outside the program's scope, or have no accepted security impact. This reduces weak or invalid submissions.

Command

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/zyrexnn/cybermes/validate
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Zyrexnn/Cybermes
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 991 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin 100% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00000 $0.00991
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.00495
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00198
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00099

Measured yesterday against content hash 25e79666e957, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

validate scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

Origin

This is a copy

100% identical to validate — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

knowledge/Claude-BugHunter/commands/validate.md · 135 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.


name: validate description: Validate a finding — runs 7-Question Gate + 4-gate checklist. Kills weak findings before report writing. Prevents N/A submissions that hurt validity ratio. Usage: /validate

/validate

Run full validation on the current finding before writing a report.

What This Does

  1. Runs 7-Question Gate (one wrong answer = kill it)
  2. Checks against the always-rejected list
  3. Runs 4 pre-submission gates
  4. Outputs: PASS (write the report) or KILL (move on)

Usage

/validate

Describe the finding when prompted. Include:

  • The endpoint
  • The bug class
  • What the PoC shows
  • The target program

The 7-Question Gate

Answer each. ONE wrong answer = STOP.

Q1: Can I demonstrate this step-by-step RIGHT NOW?

Write this out:

1. Setup:   I need [own account / another user's ID / no account]
2. Request: [exact HTTP method, URL, headers, body]
3. Result:  Response shows [exact data / action completed]
4. Impact:  Real consequence is [account takeover / PII exposed / money stolen]
5. Cost:    Time: [X min], Capital: [$0 / $X]

If step 2 is "I need to look at the code more" → KILL IT.

Q2: Is the impact accepted by this program?

Check program scope page. Is your bug class listed? Is it excluded?

Q3: Is the vulnerable asset in scope?

Exact domain in scope? Not staging/dev? Not a third-party service?

Q4: Does it need admin or privileged access that an attacker can't get?

"Admin can do X" → KILL IT. "Regular user can do X that only admin should" → valid.

Q5: Is this known or documented behavior?

Search disclosed reports + changelog + API docs.

Q6: Can you prove impact beyond "technically possible"?

  • XSS → actual cookie value in exfil request, not just alert()
  • SSRF → response body from internal service, not just DNS callback
  • IDOR → actual other-user's private data in response, not just 200 status

Q7: Is this on the never-submit list?

Missing headers, GraphQL introspection alone, clickjacking without PoC,
self-XSS, open redirect alone, SSRF DNS-only, logout CSRF, banner disclosure,
rate limit on non-critical forms, missing cookie flags alone...

Read the full file on GitHub · 135 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. yesterday First seen · 135 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 25e79666e957

Subscribe to this mod's changes

validate is a command published in the GitHub repository Zyrexnn/Cybermes (668 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 991 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to validate, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.