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.
npx skills add adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai --skill bugcrowd-reportinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-aiWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/bugcrowd-reporting)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/bugcrowd-reporting"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/bugcrowd-reporting/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/bugcrowd-reporting"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai/bugcrowd-reporting.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>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.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00171 | $0.04906 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00086 | $0.02453 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00981 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00491 |
Grade A, and why
bugcrowd-reporting 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 6d ago.
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.
This is a copy
92% identical to bugcrowd-reporting — 15 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 321 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
BUGCROWD REPORTING — Program-Specific Tactics
Companion to the generic
report-writingskill. Use when working specifically on Bugcrowd submissions where VRT mapping, OOS-clause rebuttals, or per-program target selection matter.
This skill encodes patterns that apply specifically to Bugcrowd's submission flow. For the generic per-platform templates (HackerOne / Bugcrowd / Intigriti / Immunefi report bodies), use the report-writing skill. For the 7-Question Gate before deciding to report at all, use triage-validation.
1. VRT Category Selection — Search & Fallback Strategy
Bugcrowd's submission form requires a single VRT (Vulnerability Rating Taxonomy) selection. The dropdown's default severity is bound to the chosen node — pick wrong and the form auto-suggests P4 when the actual impact is P3 or P2.
1.1 Search hierarchy (try in order, pick the highest-severity match that still describes the bug)
For any finding, search the VRT dropdown with these terms in this order:
- The bug's primary class — e.g.,
IDOR,XSS,SSRF,auth bypass,2FA bypass - The data category exposed — e.g.,
PII,sensitive data exposure,disclosure of secrets - The control bypassed — e.g.,
broken access control,authentication bypass - The endpoint type — e.g.,
no rate limiting on form > login,no rate limiting on form > change password - The generic parent node — e.g.,
Server Security Misconfiguration > Other,Broken Access Control > Other
1.2 Pick the highest-severity match that still accurately describes the bug
Never select a VRT that misrepresents the bug just to get a higher default severity. Triagers will reassign and may flag the misrepresentation. The discipline is: pick the most specific accurate VRT, then use §2 (Manual Severity Override) if the default is wrong.
1.3 Common mappings worth knowing
| Finding type | First-choice VRT | Fallback |
|---|---|---|
| ATO via missing 2FA on password change | Broken Authentication & Session Management → Second Factor Authentication (2FA/MFA) → Bypass | Broken Auth → Authentication Bypass → Other |
| Password oracle without rate limit | Broken Authentication & Session Management → Authentication Bypass → Other | Server Security Misconfiguration → No Rate Limiting on Form → Login |
| GraphQL introspection / APQ allowlist bypass | Server Security Misconfiguration → Other (justify in body) | Broken Access Control → Other |
| Username → real name PII enumeration | Sensitive Data Exposure → PII Leakage / Disclosure of Secrets → Non-Corporate User | Broken Access Control → Other |
| State desync on security-sensitive action | Application-Level DoS → Other (with state-desync framing) | Server Security Misconfiguration → Other |
| Email/SMS pumping on auth-flow endpoint | Server Security Misconfiguration → No Rate Limiting on Form → Email-Triggering / SMS-Triggering | Server Security Misconfiguration → No Rate Limiting on Action |
| Token brute-force (email-change OTP, password reset) | Broken Authentication → Authentication Bypass → Other | Server Security Misconfiguration → No Rate Limiting on Action |
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 321 lines · 171 tokens per session scan A 89223e6f624f
bugcrowd-reporting is a skill published in the GitHub repository adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai (57 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 171 tokens to every session and 4,906 once invoked, about $0.0009 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to bugcrowd-reporting, differing in 15 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
importing-a-codebase
Use when the repo holds real source code but no specs: the existing-codebase branch of setting-up-a-project, normally reached via that dispatcher, directly only when the situation is unmistakable. Not for empty workspaces (starting-a-new-project) or feature work in a specced project (brainstorming).
starting-a-new-project
Use when the workspace is empty — no code yet — and the user brings a raw idea: the brand-new branch of setting-up-a-project, normally reached via that dispatcher, directly only when the situation is unmistakable. Not for features in an existing project — use brainstorming instead.
todos
This chat has a shared, live TODO plan — your tasks for the conversation, which the user also edits. Read this skill and reach for the todo tools whenever a request takes more than a couple of steps. It covers the plan model (group = task, items = its steps; loose items are the user's lane), how to work it: propose…
writing-workflow-skills
Use when adding a new workflow skill to pi-thinkrail-workflow, changing an existing workflow skill's role, trigger, handoff, or structure, or checking a workflow skill against the workflow system's rules. Not for authoring general-purpose skills outside this package.
brainstorming
Use this BEFORE any creative or feature work: building a new feature, adding functionality, changing behavior, or making a nontrivial design decision. Turns the user's request into a validated design — recorded as a spec-graph task-spec — before any implementation. Do not skip this because a change looks small.
reviewing-changes
Use when a review package asks you to review a plan step's change set (todo.startReview): you are the REVIEWER, not the author. How to judge an agent-written diff, file findings with addreviewcomment, and settle with exactly one reviewverdict.