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 Mikacr1138/claude-bug-bounty --skill report-writinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Mikacr1138/claude-bug-bountyWrote 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/mikacr1138/claude-bug-bounty/report-writing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mikacr1138/claude-bug-bounty/report-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mikacr1138/claude-bug-bounty/report-writing/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/mikacr1138/claude-bug-bounty/report-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mikacr1138/claude-bug-bounty/report-writing.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 | $0.00082 | $0.02901 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.01451 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00580 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00290 |
Grade A, and why
report-writing 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 11d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 382 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
REPORT WRITING
Impact-first. Human tone. No theoretical language. Triagers are people.
THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE
Never use "could potentially" or "could be used to" or "may allow". Either it does the thing or it doesn't. If you haven't proved it, don't claim it.
BAD: "This vulnerability could potentially allow an attacker to access user data."
GOOD: "An attacker can access any user's order history by changing the user_id
parameter to the target user's ID. I confirmed this using two test accounts:
[email protected] (ID 123) successfully retrieved [email protected] (ID 456)
orders, including their shipping address and payment method last 4 digits."
TITLE FORMULA
[Bug Class] in [Exact Endpoint/Feature] allows [attacker role] to [impact] [victim scope]
Good titles (specific, impact-first):
IDOR in /api/v2/invoices/{id} allows authenticated user to read any customer's invoice data
Missing auth on POST /api/admin/users allows unauthenticated attacker to create admin accounts
Stored XSS in profile bio field executes in admin panel — allows privilege escalation
SSRF via image import URL parameter reaches AWS EC2 metadata service
Race condition in coupon redemption allows same code to be used unlimited times
Bad titles (vague, useless to triager):
IDOR vulnerability found
Broken access control
XSS in user input
Security issue in API
Unauthorized access to user data
HACKERONE REPORT TEMPLATE
## Summary
[One paragraph: what the bug is, where it is, what an attacker can do. Be specific.
Include: endpoint, method, parameter, data exposed, required access level.]
Example: "The `/api/users/{user_id}/orders` endpoint does not verify that the
authenticated user owns the requested user_id. An attacker can enumerate any
user's order history, including PII (email, address, phone) and purchase history,
by incrementing the user_id parameter. No privileges beyond a standard free
account are required."
## Vulnerability Details
**Vulnerability Type:** IDOR / Broken Object Level Authorization
**CVSS 3.1 Score:** 6.5 (Medium) — AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
**Affected Endpoint:** GET /api/users/{user_id}/orders
## Steps to Reproduce
**Environment:**
- Attacker account: [email protected], user_id = 123
- Victim account: [email protected], user_id = 456
- Target: https://target.com
**Steps:**
1. Log in as [email protected], obtain Bearer token
2. Send the following request:
GET /api/users/456/orders HTTP/1.1 Host: target.com Authorization: Bearer ATTACKER_TOKEN_HERE
3. Observe response:
```json
{
"orders": [
{"id": 789, "items": [...], "email": "[email protected]", "address": "123 Main St..."}
]
}
The response contains victim's full order history and PII despite being requested by a different user.
Impact
An authenticated attacker can enumerate all user orders by iterating user_id values. This exposes: full name, email, shipping address, purchase history, and payment method (last 4). With ~100K users, this represents a mass PII breach affecting all registered users. Exploitation requires only a free account and takes minutes with a simple loop.
Recommended Fix
Add server-side ownership verification:
if order.user_id != current_user.id:
raise Forbidden()
Supporting Materials
[Screenshot showing attacker's session returning victim's order data] [Video walkthrough if available]
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 382 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 899d868c0c98
report-writing is a skill published in the GitHub repository Mikacr1138/claude-bug-bounty (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 2,901 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
owasp-security
Use when reviewing code for security vulnerabilities, implementing authentication/authorization, handling user input, or discussing web application security. Covers OWASP Top 10:2025, ASVS 5.0, LLM Top 10 (2025), and Agentic AI security (2026).
prompt-injection-tester
Red-team an LLM application against prompt injection and jailbreaks using a curated, categorized payload library and canary-based detection, then produce a resilience score. Use when the user asks to "test my chatbot for prompt injection", "check if my AI app is jailbreakable", "red-team my LLM", "evaluate…
cors-auditor
Audit a site's Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) configuration for misconfigurations — wildcard origin with credentials, reflected arbitrary Origin, the 'null' origin, overly broad allowed methods, and risky credentialed CORS. Use when the user asks to "check my CORS config", "is my API's CORS safe", "test for CORS…
dependency-check
Audit project dependencies for known-vulnerable versions and risky pinning. Parses requirements.txt and package.json, matches a bundled offline advisory DB, optionally queries OSV.dev live, and warns about unpinned versions. Use when the user asks to "check dependencies for vulnerabilities", "audit my requirements.txt…
jwt-inspector
Decode and security-audit a JSON Web Token — flag alg=none, missing/excessive expiry, symmetric-alg confusion risk, missing claims — and attempt an offline HMAC secret crack against a wordlist to detect weak signing keys. Use when the user asks to "decode this JWT", "is this token secure?", "audit a JWT", or "check if…
sast-lite
Static security analysis for Python source via AST walking — finds command injection, insecure deserialization, eval/exec, weak crypto, SQL injection, disabled TLS verification, hardcoded secrets and more, each tagged with a CWE. Use when the user asks to "audit this code for vulnerabilities", "run a SAST scan"…