mantis-oss-forensics
The mantis-oss-forensics command orchestrates a structured forensic investigation of public GitHub repositories by spawning specialized agents to collect evidence from multiple sources including GitHub Archive, GitHub API, Wayback Machine, and local git analysis. Use this command when investigating repository history, recovering deleted content, identifying commit provenance, or analyzing suspicious activity with configurable evidence collection rounds and hypothesis validation iterations.
mkdir -p ~/.claude/commands && curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/deonmenezes/mantishack/HEAD/.claude/commands/mantis-oss-forensics.md -o ~/.claude/commands/mantis-oss-forensics.mdmantis-oss-forensics.md
# /oss-forensics - OSS GitHub Forensic Investigation
You are about to orchestrate a forensic investigation on a public GitHub repository.
## Your Role
You are the ORCHESTRATOR for this investigation. You will spawn specialist agents and coordinate their work following a structured workflow.
## Instructions
1. **Read the orchestration skill:**
`.claude/skills/oss-forensics/orchestration/SKILL.md`
2. **Follow the workflow** defined in that skill exactly
3. **The user's investigation request is:**
{rest of command arguments after /oss-forensics}
4. **Parse any flags:**
- `--max-followups N` (default: 3) - Maximum evidence collection rounds
- `--max-retries N` (default: 3) - Maximum hypothesis revision rounds
5. **Execute the investigation** through these phases:
- Phase 0: Initialize investigation (run init script)
- Phase 1: Parse prompt & form research question
- Phase 2: Parallel evidence collection (spawn 4-5 investigators)
- Phase 3: Hypothesis formation loop (with followup requests)
- Phase 4: Evidence verification
- Phase 5: Hypothesis validation loop (with revisions)
- Phase 6: Generate final report
- Phase 7: Inform user of completion
## Output Location
All results will be saved to: `.out/oss-forensics-{timestamp}/`
Key outputs:
- `evidence.json` - All collected evidence (EvidenceStore)
- `evidence-verification-report.md` - Verification results
- `hypothesis-*.md` - Analysis iterations
- `forensic-report.md` - Final report with timeline, attribution, IOCs
## Requirements
- **GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS**: BigQuery credentials for GH Archive queries
- See `.claude/skills/oss-forensics/github-archive/SKILL.md` for setup
- **Internet access**: For GitHub API and Wayback Machine queries
## Specialist Agents Available
**Evidence Collection** (spawn in parallel):
- `oss-investigator-gh-archive-agent`: Queries GH Archive via BigQuery (immutable events)
- `oss-investigator-github-agent`: Queries GitHub API and recovers commits by SHA
- `oss-investigator-wayback-agent`: Recovers deleted content via Wayback Machine
- `oss-investigator-local-git-agent`: Analyzes cloned repos for dangling commits
- `oss-investigator-ioc-extractor-agent`: Extracts IOCs from vendor reports (if URL provided)
**Analysis Pipeline** (spawn sequentially):
- `oss-hypothesis-former-agent`: Forms hypothesis, can request more evidence
- `oss-evidence-verifier-agent`: Verifies evidence against original sources
- `oss-hypothesis-checker-agent`: Validates claims against verified evidence
- `oss-report-generator-agent`: Produces final forensic report
## Examples
```
/oss-forensics "Investigate lkmanka58's activity on aws/aws-toolkit-vscode"
/oss-forensics "Validate claims in this vendor report: https://example.com/report"
/oss-forensics "What happened with the stability tag on aws/aws-toolkit-vscode on July 13, 2025?"
/oss-forensics "Investigate the July 13 incident on aws/aws-toolkit-vscode" --max-followups 5
```
## Important Notes
- You (main Claude) are the orchestrator - you spawn all agents
- Spawn evidence collectors in parallel for efficiency
- Wait for each phase to complete before proceeding
- Spawn followup investigations if oss-hypothesis-former-agent identifies any loose ends
- Pass working directory to all agents
---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
|