triage
The /triage slash command runs a fast seven-question gate to determine whether a security finding is worth developing into a full bug report. It eliminates out-of-scope, undemonstratable, or low-impact submissions before the researcher invests time in validation and documentation, using yes-or-no answers to questions about demonstrability, program acceptance, scope, privilege requirements, novelty, impact proof, and never-submit status.
mkdir -p ~/.claude/commands && curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter/HEAD/commands/triage.md -o ~/.claude/commands/triage.mdtriage.md
# /triage
Quick triage to decide: submit or kill?
## When to Use
Use this before spending time writing a full report. If triage passes, run `/validate` for the full 4-gate check, then `/report`.
## Usage
```
/triage
```
Describe the finding in one sentence. Example:
- "I can read other users' orders by changing user_id in /api/orders/{id}"
- "The /api/export endpoint returns 200 with data even with no auth header"
- "I found X-Forwarded-Host is reflected in the password reset email"
## The 7 Questions (Fast Version)
Answer YES or NO to each. First NO = kill it immediately.
```
Q1: Can I demonstrate this with a real HTTP request RIGHT NOW?
YES: I have the request/response already
NO: I need to look at more code first → KILL
Q2: Is this impact type accepted by the program?
YES: Bug class is on their accepted list
NO: They explicitly exclude this type → KILL
Q3: Is the vulnerable asset owned by and in scope for the program?
YES: Domain confirmed in-scope, not third-party
NO: Third-party service or excluded domain → KILL
Q4: Does this work without admin/privileged access?
YES: Regular user account is enough
NO: Requires admin → KILL (99% of programs)
Q5: Is this NOT already known/disclosed/documented behavior?
YES: Not in changelogs, not in disclosed reports
NO: It's documented as intended → KILL
Q6: Can I prove impact beyond "technically possible"?
YES: I have actual data in the response / action completed
NO: I only have a 200 status or error message → DOWNGRADE
Q7: Is this NOT on the never-submit list?
YES: It's a real bug class
NO: Missing headers, self-XSS, open redirect alone, etc. → KILL or CHAIN
```
## Fast Kill Checklist
Kill immediately if ANY of these are true:
```
[ ] "Admin can do X" = not a bug
[ ] "Could theoretically lead to..." = no PoC = not a bug
[ ] Bug requires 3+ preconditions simultaneously
[ ] Finding is a missing header, missing flag, missing DMARC
[ ] SSRF with DNS callback only, no data returned
[ ] Open redirect with no OAuth chain or ATO path
[ ] Self-XSS (only affects your own account)
[ ] Introspection only (no IDOR, no auth bypass shown)
[ ] Rate limit on login/contact/search (Cloudflare covers it)
```
## Conditional Kill (chain required)
If it's on the never-submit list BUT you can chain it:
```
Open redirect → OAuth code theft → ATO = report the chain
SSRF DNS → internal service access = data = report the chain
CORS → credentialed data exfil PoC = report the chain
Prompt injection → IDOR via chatbot = report the chain
```
If you can't build the chain today → KILL IT.
## Output
**GO:** "All 7 pass. Run /validate for full check, then /report."
**KILL [reason]:**
- "Q1 fails — no HTTP request yet"
- "Q4 fails — requires admin access"
- "Q7 fails — open redirect alone is not submittable. Chain it with OAuth theft first."
**DOWNGRADE:**
- "Q6 — you have 200 status but not actual other-user data. Reproduce with two accounts and show victim's PII in the response before reporting."End-to-end Android APK red-team pipeline — automated APK acquisition (Play Store + apkpure + apkmirror fallback), jadx decompilation, secret/URL/JWT/Firebase grep, pinned-cert extraction, exported-component enumeration, Frida runtime instrumentation templates, intent-injection probes. Built from an authorized external red-team engagement where 7 APKs were pulled manually, 4 download attempts truncated, and a hardcoded JWT + 30 internal API endpoints were recovered from one of the apps. Use when target has a mobile app catalogue (Play Store developer page), when you find an APK URL hosted on a web server, or when post-recon mentions "mobile app" in scope.
Run autonomous hunt loop on a target — scope check → recon → rank surface → hunt → validate → report with configurable checkpoints. Usage: /autopilot target.com [--paranoid|--normal|--yolo]
Local-tooling companion to the bug-bounty orchestrator — carries the SAME complete bug-bounty workflow, but reach for THIS variant when you also need to resolve where tools, wordlists, and clones are installed on the local machine (jhaddix, SecLists, trufflehog, ffuf, dalfox, ghauri); for pure orchestration/routing use the bug-bounty skill. Workflow it covers — recon (subdomain enumeration, asset discovery, fingerprinting, HackerOne scope, source code audit), pre-hunt learning (disclosed reports, tech stack research, mind maps, threat modeling), vulnerability hunting (IDOR, SSRF, XSS, auth bypass, CSRF, race conditions, SQLi, XXE, file upload, business logic, GraphQL, HTTP smuggling, cache poisoning, OAuth, timing side-channels, OIDC, SSTI, subdomain takeover, cloud misconfig, ATO chains, agentic AI), LLM/AI security testing (chatbot IDOR, prompt injection, indirect injection, ASCII smuggling, exfil channels, RCE via code tools, system prompt extraction, ASI01-ASI10), A-to-B bug chaining (IDOR→auth bypass, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth), bypass tables (SSRF IP bypass, open redirect bypass, file upload bypass), language-specific grep (JS prototype pollution, Python pickle, PHP type juggling, Go template.HTML, Ruby YAML.load, Rust unwrap), and reporting (7-Question Gate, 4 validation gates, human-tone writing, templates by vuln class, CVSS 3.1, PoC generation, always-rejected list, conditional chain table, submission checklist). Use when you need the local install path of a tool / wordlist / clone for a hunt, or as the full-workflow variant when operating from this local toolkit; for general routing use the bug-bounty skill. 中文触发词:漏洞赏金、安全测试、渗透测试、漏洞挖掘、信息收集、子域名枚举、XSS测试、SQL注入、SSRF、安全审计、漏洞报告
Use at the START of any bug bounty hunting session, when switching targets, or when feeling lost about what to do next. Master orchestrator that combines the 5-phase non-linear hunting workflow with the critical thinking framework (developer psychology, anomaly detection, What-If experiments). Routes to all other skills based on current hunting phase. Also use when asking "what should I do next" or "where am I in the process.
Complete bug bounty workflow — recon (subdomain enumeration, asset discovery, fingerprinting, HackerOne scope, source code audit), pre-hunt learning (disclosed reports, tech stack research, mind maps, threat modeling), vulnerability hunting (IDOR, SSRF, XSS, auth bypass, CSRF, race conditions, SQLi, XXE, file upload, business logic, GraphQL, HTTP smuggling, cache poisoning, OAuth, timing side-channels, OIDC, SSTI, subdomain takeover, cloud misconfig, ATO chains, agentic AI), LLM/AI security testing (chatbot IDOR, prompt injection, indirect injection, ASCII smuggling, exfil channels, RCE via code tools, system prompt extraction, ASI01-ASI10), A-to-B bug chaining (IDOR→auth bypass, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth), bypass tables (SSRF IP bypass, open redirect bypass, file upload bypass), language-specific grep (JS prototype pollution, Python pickle, PHP type juggling, Go template.HTML, Ruby YAML.load, Rust unwrap), and reporting (7-Question Gate, 4 validation gates, human-tone writing, templates by vuln class, CVSS 3.1, PoC generation, always-rejected list, conditional chain table, submission checklist). Use for ANY bug bounty task — starting a new target, doing recon, hunting specific vulns, auditing source code, testing AI features, validating findings, or writing reports. 中文触发词:漏洞赏金、安全测试、渗透测试、漏洞挖掘、信息收集、子域名枚举、XSS测试、SQL注入、SSRF、安全审计、漏洞报告
Bugcrowd-specific reporting tactics complementing report-writing: VRT category search-and-fallback strategy when no exact match exists, manual severity override when VRT defaults underrate impact, severity-request paragraph as first body section, OOS-clause rebuttal templates (rate limiting on auth-flow endpoints, debug-info framing, user-enumeration with sensitive PII, theoretical-issue counter), chained-finding cross-reference patterns, target selection for QA-vs-prod programs, researcher-side hygiene (Bugcrowdninja email alias, account state restoration, friendly-tester posture). Use when filing a Bugcrowd submission, when VRT default seems wrong, when triager closes as OOS or downgrades severity, when chaining linked submissions, or when scope distinguishes production from QA. Pairs with report-writing and triage-validation.
Build an exploit chain — given bug A, finds B and C to combine for higher severity and payout. Knows common chain patterns: IDOR→ATO, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth. Usage: /chain
Cloud IAM red-team attack chain across AWS, Azure, GCP — focused on EXTERNAL exploitation paths and post-credential-discovery privilege analysis. Covers IAM enumeration (aws iam, az role, gcloud iam), STS/AssumeRole chaining, Azure Managed Identity abuse (via SSRF/leak), GCP service account JSON abuse, IMDSv1/v2 attacks via SSRF, K8s ServiceAccount token privilege analysis once held (token discovery / cluster exposure is owned by hunt-k8s), role-trust-policy confused-deputy, cross-account assume-role enumeration, IAM privilege escalation patterns (24+ AWS, 8+ Azure, 6+ GCP), and AWS Cognito Identity Pool unauthenticated-role attack chain (GetId → GetCredentialsForIdentity → IAM role abuse). Built for the case where recon yields a credential (key, JSON, token) and you need to know what it grants and how to escalate. Use when an AWS key / Azure secret / GCP service account JSON / K8s SA token surfaces from a code repo, JS bundle, APK, breach corpus, or SSRF chain.