本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

vuln-report

Turn one confirmed security finding into a disclosure-ready GitHub advisory with root cause, proof of concept, impact, and source evidence. Use for reporting an established vulnerability, not discovering or validating one.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB
  • references/report-template.md4.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Vulnerability Report

Overview

Draft one disclosure-ready report for one confirmed bug. Keep the report evidence-driven, concrete, and concise. Prefer the section order and phrasing rules in references/report-template.md.

Workflow

  1. Confirm the report is about one bug only.
  2. Extract the minimum facts needed to prove the issue:
    • vulnerable component or behavior
    • attacker-controlled input or missing validation
    • preconditions and trust boundary
    • exploit result
    • practical impact
    • strongest reproduction path
    • decisive source locations and any relevant fix commit
  3. Separate demonstrated facts from inference. State assumptions explicitly.
  4. Draft the report using the required section order from references/report-template.md.
  5. Always embed at least one fenced code snippet from the decisive code path, and explain what each snippet proves.
  6. Always convert repository file references and patch references into GitHub markdown links, and prefer embedding those links directly into the surrounding explanation instead of listing them separately.
  7. Add only the optional sections that materially improve accuracy or triage value.
  8. Save the final report as report.md inside a folder named with the bug's severity identifier (C1, H1, M1, etc.) followed by a lowercase hyphenated slug derived from the final report title. Use C for Critical, H for High, M for Medium, sequentially numbered if there are multiple bugs of the same severity. Example: C1-cross-site-websocket-hijacking-re-enabled-by-allow-websocket/report.md. Also, ensure the bug report title and internal references use this ID (e.g., '[C1] Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking'). Do not write reports for Low severity findings — document them in the summary table only.
  9. Remove filler, hedging, and unproven claims before finalizing.

Required Sections

Always include these sections in this order:

  1. Summary
  2. Details
  3. Root Cause
  4. Proof of Concept (PoC)
  5. Impact

If the repository already uses Technical Details with Root Cause nested under it, preserve that local pattern. Otherwise keep Root Cause as its own section.

Evidence Rules

  • Include one or more fenced code snippets in the report, usually in Details or Root Cause.
  • Use the smallest snippet that proves the bug.
  • Introduce each cited code location with a short explanation of why it matters; do not drop raw link lists without commentary.
  • Add GitHub markdown links for source files, line anchors, controllers, helpers, patch commits, or affected surfaces whenever the repository is on GitHub and the target URL is known or can be derived.
  • When constructing GitHub source links, use the latest commit SHA (from git rev-parse HEAD or the most recent commit visible in context) instead of a branch name such as main or master, so links remain stable after future commits.
  • Prefer embedding inline markdown links into explanatory sentences such as The following code in [build_request](https://github.com/org/repo/blob/main/src/executor.rs#L10) reads attacker-controlled input without validation.
  • Keep non-GitHub standards or spec citations as normal markdown links.

Self-Contained Rule

report.md is a disclosure-ready artefact. The reader must understand the vulnerability, the trace, the impact, and the reproduction without opening any sibling working file (drafts, debate transcripts, review notes, internal metadata).

  • Do not write prose pointers such as See draft.md, See debate.md, See adversarial-review.md, See metadata.json, See pN-NNN for full trace, See AP-NNN, Refer to the draft for impact analysis, or for the full trace see .... If that content is needed in the report, inline it.
  • Do not cite internal phase IDs (pN-NNN, p10-NNN, AP-NNN) — these are pipeline bookkeeping, not reader-facing references.
  • Sibling-file references are only allowed for runnable evidence artefacts shipped alongside the report (e.g. poc.<ext>, evidence/<file>), and only inside the Proof of Concept or Impact sections. Quote the decisive lines from logs inline rather than telling the reader to open them.
  • GitHub links to source code (pinned to a commit SHA) are external evidence, not deferred narrative — those are required, not banned.
  • Before finalizing, scan the draft for the banned phrasings above and rewrite any occurrence to inline the content.

Section Rules

Summary

Open with the vulnerable behavior, attacker control, and outcome in one short paragraph. Name the component only if it improves clarity.

Details

Explain the code path and why the protection fails. Include relevant conditions such as auth mode, stateless mode, parser behavior, MIME confusion, or transport assumptions. Support the explanation with code snippets and GitHub markdown links to the exact source locations.

Root Cause

State the design or implementation mistake in one focused subsection. Prefer causal language such as missing origin validation, unsafe trust in extension-derived MIME, or policy enforced only in one execution mode.

Proof of Concept (PoC)

Use the shortest reliable reproduction. Prefer numbered steps and a runnable request, command, or code block. State the expected result.

Impact

Describe exploitability and consequence, not just severity labels. Cover who is exposed, what an attacker gains, and which environments are most at risk.

Optional Sections

Include an optional section only when it adds concrete triage value.

Allowed optional sections include:

  • short report title at the top
  • vulnerability type
  • CWE
  • CVSS vector or severity guidance
  • attack preconditions or authentication reality
  • affected surfaces or scope notes
  • specification or guidance references
  • patch or fix-commit metadata
  • exploit constraints, non-default assumptions, or deployment qualifiers

Do not add Affected Components or Remediation sections unless the user explicitly asks for them.

Quality Bar

  • Keep one bug per report.
  • Number bugs using severity prefixes (C1, H1, M1) and prefix both the report title and the folder name with this ID. Low severity findings are not reported individually.
  • Save each single-bug report to <ID>-<title-slug>/report.md.
  • Make the exploit story readable without external context — and explicitly without opening any sibling working file (draft.md, debate.md, adversarial-review.md, metadata.json). See the Self-Contained Rule.
  • No pointer prose to sibling narrative files or internal phase IDs (pN-NNN, AP-NNN). Inline the content.
  • Use exact file paths, endpoints, headers, options, or modes when they matter.
  • Distinguish observed behavior from likely impact.
  • Prefer measured severity language over inflated claims.
  • Preserve repository-specific terminology if the source material already uses it.
  • Include fenced code snippets and GitHub markdown links in every report.
  • End with a report that can be pasted into an advisory, audit finding, or maintainer issue with minimal cleanup.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Audit GitHub Actions that run AI agents for prompt injection, unsafe interpolation, sandbox gaps, and permissive actor rules. Use for agentic CI workflows, not general application code review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

waybarrios/opencode-power-pack5352026年10月6日 更新

Audit and improve project-rules files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .agents/instructions, local overrides) so the agent keeps accurate project context. Use when the user asks to check, audit, review, update, improve, or fix their AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md, mentions "project rules maintenance" or "agent context optimization", or when the codebase has changed enough that the rules file may be stale. Scans the repository for every rules file, grades each against a quality rubric, outputs a quality report, and applies targeted edits only after user approval.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

waybarrios/opencode-power-pack5352026年10月6日 更新

Capture learnings from the current session into the project-rules file (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or local override) so future sessions benefit. Use when the user says "revise the rules", "update AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md with what we just learned", "save this to project memory", "remember this for next time", or at the end of a productive session when valuable context has emerged that is not yet documented. This complements agents-md-improver — improver audits, while this one captures.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

waybarrios/opencode-power-pack5352026年10月6日 更新

ai-slop

無料

Operational rubric that turns "don't make AI slop" into observable properties, severity levels, evidence requirements, and repair actions for interface design. Use as the reference rubric when building or reviewing marketing sites, product interfaces, dashboards, portfolios, or e-commerce pages, especially alongside frontend-design.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

waybarrios/opencode-power-pack5352026年10月6日 更新

Design a feature architecture by analyzing existing codebase patterns and conventions, then provide a comprehensive implementation blueprint with specific files to create or modify, component designs, data flows, and a build sequence. Use this skill when the user asks for an architecture design, an implementation plan for a non-trivial feature, or when dispatched as a sub-task during feature-dev architecture phase.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

waybarrios/opencode-power-pack5352026年10月6日 更新

Deeply analyze an existing codebase feature by tracing execution paths, mapping architecture layers, understanding patterns and abstractions, and documenting dependencies. Use this skill when you need to understand how a feature works before modifying or extending it, when dispatched as a sub-task during feature-dev exploration, or when the user asks "how does X work in this codebase".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

waybarrios/opencode-power-pack5352026年10月6日 更新

waybarrios のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する