mantis-codeql
The mantis-codeql command runs CodeQL static analysis with SMT-based dataflow validation to detect complex vulnerabilities like tainted data flows, use-after-free bugs, and injection chains. Use it when Semgrep-level scanning is insufficient and you need deeper vulnerability detection with optional LLM-powered analysis and Z3-powered constraint solving to verify exploit feasibility.
mkdir -p ~/.claude/commands && curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/deonmenezes/mantishack/HEAD/.claude/commands/mantis-codeql.md -o ~/.claude/commands/mantis-codeql.mdmantis-codeql.md
# /codeql - MANTISHACK CodeQL Analysis Runs CodeQL deep static analysis with dataflow validation. Slower but finds complex vulnerabilities that Semgrep misses (tainted flows, use-after-free, injection chains). ## Usage ``` python3 mantishack.py codeql --repo <path> [options] ``` ## Options | Option | Description | |--------|-------------| | `--repo <path>` | Repository path (required) | | `--languages <list>` | Comma-separated languages (auto-detected if omitted) | | `--scan-only` | Scan only — produce SARIF, skip LLM analysis (default) | | `--analyze` | Enable LLM-powered autonomous analysis + exploit generation | | `--build-command <cmd>` | Custom build command for database creation | | `--extended` | Use extended security suites (more rules, slower) | | `--force` | Force database recreation | | `--max-findings <n>` | Max findings to analyse (with `--analyze`) | ## SMT Dataflow Pre-Check When `--analyze` is enabled, dataflow findings are routed through an SMT pre-check before the full LLM analysis (`packages/codeql/smt_path_validator.py`): 1. The LLM extracts branch conditions from each path step as structured predicates (`"size > 0"`, `"offset + length <= buffer_size"`, etc.) 2. Z3 checks whether those conditions are **jointly satisfiable** 3. **unsat** → path is provably unreachable; finding skipped (no LLM call) 4. **sat** → concrete satisfying values returned; fed as candidate inputs into the LLM prompt and `prerequisites` field of `DataflowValidation` 5. **None** → Z3 unavailable or conditions unparseable; full LLM analysis runs Requires `z3-solver` (`pip install z3-solver`). Degrades gracefully when absent. **Best coverage:** CWE-190 (integer overflow, **including 32-bit wraparound** — the extraction LLM emits per-path width/signedness hints so Z3 models the right C type semantics), CWE-120/122 (buffer size checks), CWE-193 (off-by-one), CWE-476 (null deref). String-based findings (CWE-89) fall through to LLM analysis. ## Examples ```bash # Scan only (default) — produces SARIF /codeql --repo /tmp/vulns # Full autonomous analysis (includes SMT dataflow pre-check if z3 installed) /codeql --repo /tmp/vulns --analyze # Specific language with custom build /codeql --repo /tmp/vulns --languages cpp --build-command "make" ``` ---
Use this agent when the target is a LIVE REST or GraphQL API you are authorized to test and the question is "can I tamper request bodies, headers, ids, and tokens to read or act on data that isn't mine?" — active, request-driven abuse of the API contract, not static code review. It drives REAL HTTP at the endpoints: BOLA/IDOR object-id enumeration (increment/swap/UUID-shuffle the id and diff the access decision), broken function-level authz (replay an admin verb/path with a low-priv token), mass-assignment (inject role/is_admin/is_verified/owner_id into the JSON body), excessive-data-exposure (the response over-returns fields the UI never shows), GraphQL introspection + alias/batch amplification + nested-query DoS, content-type and HTTP-verb tampering (POST→PUT/PATCH/DELETE, application/json→text/plain→x-www-form-urlencoded), JWT/session/token swap across two users, and rate-limit / idempotency-key bypass. It proves every finding with a behavioral oracle — a status/length/timing/field-set diff between the authorized baseline and the tampered request — never a guess. Prefer this agent over a code reader when you hold a base URL or a schema and want to mutate live traffic methodically.\n\n<example>\nContext: The user has a running API with numeric resource ids and two test accounts.\nuser: "Here's our staging API at https://api.staging.acme.test and tokens for user A and user B — can user A read user B's orders?"\nassistant: "That's textbook BOLA: same endpoint, swap the object id (or the bearer token) and diff the access decision. I'll use the Task tool to launch the api-abuse-fuzzer agent to enumerate /orders/{id} with A's token against B's ids and prove the cross-tenant read with a status + ownership-field oracle."\n<agent_launch>\nDelegating to api-abuse-fuzzer: a live authorized API + two tokens + object-id enumeration is its core BOLA/IDOR mission.\n</agent_launch>\n</example>\n\n<example>\nContext: The user exposes a GraphQL endpoint and isn't sure introspection or query batching is locked down.\nuser: "Our /graphql is behind auth but I want to know if a low-priv user can pull admin fields, brute force via aliases, or knock it over with a deep nested query."\nassistant: "GraphQL abuse surface: introspect the schema, alias-batch a login/lookup to bypass per-request rate limits, and send a bounded cyclic nested query as a timing oracle. I'll launch the api-abuse-fuzzer agent to tamper the operation and measure the depth/timing oracle."\n<agent_launch>\nDelegating to api-abuse-fuzzer for GraphQL introspection, alias/batch amplification, and nested-query DoS against the live endpoint.\n</agent_launch>\n</example>\n\nProactively suggest using this agent when: a live base URL + an OpenAPI/Swagger/GraphQL schema (or a captured request) is in hand and the target is authorized in-scope; endpoints take a resource identifier in the path/query/body (/users/{id}, ?account=, {"order_id": ...}) — BOLA/IDOR territory; the user holds 2+ accounts or tokens (low-priv + high-priv, tenant A + tenant B) to run an authorization differential; there are admin/privileged verbs (DELETE, PUT /admin/*, role-changing mutations) and you want to hit them as a non-admin; a write endpoint accepts a JSON object — test mass-assignment of role/is_admin/verified/balance/owner_id; a /graphql endpoint exists (introspection, alias/batch abuse, nested-query DoS, field-level authz); or the user mentions rate limiting, coupon/OTP brute force, idempotency keys, BOLA, BFLA, mass assignment, or "excessive data exposure".
Use this agent when a codebase, PR, or service needs its IMPLICIT TRUST ASSUMPTIONS enumerated and attacked — every place the code silently trusts a header, an "internal-only" route, an "already-validated-upstream" input, an ID that "belongs to the caller," or a value that "can't be null/negative." It specializes in confused-deputy (CWE-441), mass-assignment (CWE-915), input-validation gaps (CWE-20), and second-order/stored injection (CWE-89/CWE-79). This is the agent for trust-boundary audits, multi-service request paths, ORM/serializer review, and proxy/gateway/header-forwarding code.\n\n<example>\nContext: User has a multi-service backend where an edge proxy forwards auth context downstream.\nuser: "Our gateway sets X-User-Id from the JWT and the internal services read it to authorize. Can you check this?"\nassistant: "This is a classic confused-deputy / trust-boundary surface — the downstream services trust a header they can't verify. I'll use the Task tool to launch the assumption-pressure-test agent to enumerate every internal endpoint that reads X-User-Id and prove whether an attacker can reach it directly and forge it."\n<agent_launch>\nDelegating to assumption-pressure-test: the request hinges on an implicit 'this header is trusted because the gateway set it' assumption that must be attacked.\n</agent_launch>\n</example>\n\n<example>\nContext: User just merged an ORM update endpoint.\nuser: "Here's the new profile update handler: User.objects.filter(id=request.user.id).update(**request.data)"\nassistant: "That `**request.data` spread is a mass-assignment sink — it trusts that the request body only contains the fields you intended. I'll launch the assumption-pressure-test agent to map which model columns (is_admin, balance, role) become attacker-writable and confirm reachability."\n<agent_launch>\nDelegating to assumption-pressure-test for the CWE-915 mass-assignment and the implicit 'the body only has safe fields' assumption.\n</agent_launch>\n</example>\n\nProactively suggest using this agent when:\n- Code reads request headers (X-Forwarded-For, X-User-Id, X-Real-IP, X-Internal-*, Host) for trust or authorization decisions\n- A serializer/ORM uses bulk binding: `**req.body`, `Object.assign`, `ModelMapper`, `BeanUtils.copyProperties`, `update_attributes`, `params.permit!`\n- Comments or names assert trust: "internal only", "already validated", "trusted", "comes from gateway", "sanitized upstream"\n- Data is stored then later concatenated into SQL/HTML/shell (second-order injection)\n- An endpoint takes an `id`/`uuid`/`account`/`order` param that maps to a resource (IDOR / object ownership)
Generate gcov coverage data for a code repository.
Analyze security bugs from any C/C++ project with full root-cause tracing
Analyze crashes using rr recordings, function traces, and coverage data to produce root-cause analyses.
Carefully analyze root cause analysis reports for crashes to make sure they are correct
Multi-stage pipeline to validate vulnerability findings are real, reachable, and exploitable
|