Common Exploit Verification

hoangnguyen0403/common-exploit-verification

Enforce "No Exploit, No Report" policy with PoC construction standards, false-positive filtering, and evidence collection per vulnerability class across backend, frontend, and mobile. Use when validating security findings, constructing exploit proofs, filtering false positives, or writing pentest findings.

3k tokens

context cost

the whole folder, loaded on every use

files

instructions only

copies elsewhere

how many repositories repackaged it

536

stars on the repo

on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository

npx skills add https://github.com/HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard --skill common-exploit-verification

What comes with it

7 463 bytes besides the instruction

references/exploit-playbook.md

references/false-positive-checklist.md

The instruction itself

8 sections, as written by the author

Exploit Verification Standard

Priority: P0 (CRITICAL)

Always-Apply Rules

No Exploit = No Report: Finding without reproducible PoC is discarded. No exceptions.
No Theoretical Findings: "This could be exploited if..." → rejected. Demonstrate actual impact.
No Tool Output as Evidence: Scanner output alone insufficient. Manual verification required.

PoC Construction

Every confirmed finding must include all fields:

ID: [unique identifier]
Vulnerability: [CWE-XXX: type name]
Platform: [backend|frontend|mobile-ios|mobile-android]
Component: [file:line or endpoint]
Severity: [Critical|High|Medium|Low] (CVSS: X.X)
OWASP: [mapping — e.g., A03:2021, API1:2023, M4:2024]

-- Proof of Concept --
Preconditions: [required state, auth level, config]
Steps:
1. [exact step with command/payload]
2. [expected vs actual result]
Payload: [exact input — copy-paste ready]
Evidence: [response body, status code, data returned]

-- Impact --
Impact: [what attacker gains — data, access, control]
Blast Radius: [lateral movement, escalation paths]

-- Remediation --
Fix: [specific code change, not generic advice]

Validation Gate

| Result | Action | Criteria |

|---|---|---|

| ✅ Confirmed | Include in report | PoC reproduces, impact demonstrated |

| ⚠️ Conditional | Include with conditions | Requires specific config/timing/race |

| ❌ Unconfirmed | Discard | Cannot reproduce despite 3 attempts |

| 🔄 Degraded | Downgrade severity | Partial impact, mitigating controls exist |

False Positive Filters

See false-positive-checklist for platform-specific filters.

Quick checks before reporting:

SAST-only finding: Is the flagged code actually reachable from user input? Trace full data flow.
Scanner noise: Does the "vulnerability" have compensating controls (WAF, middleware, framework defaults)?
Version mismatch: Is the CVE for a function the project actually uses (reachability analysis)?
Client-side only: Is the "bypass" only client-side while server enforces correctly?

Anti-Patterns

No severity inflation: Missing header ≠ Critical. CVSS score must match demonstrated impact.
No duplicate findings: Same root cause across endpoints = 1 finding with multiple affected components.
No remediation without specificity: "Use parameterized queries" → include the exact code change for the affected file.

References

False Positive Checklist — platform-specific false positive filters
Exploit Playbook — PoC templates per vulnerability class (backend, frontend, mobile)

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take hoangnguyen0403/common-exploit-verification from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.