Skip to main content
ClaudeWave
Skill493 repo starsupdated 25d ago

codex-pr-body

Update the title and body of one or more pull requests.

Install in Claude Code
Copy
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/deonmenezes/mantishack /tmp/codex-pr-body && cp -r /tmp/codex-pr-body/.codex/skills/codex-pr-body ~/.claude/skills/codex-pr-body
Then start a new Claude Code session; the skill loads automatically.

SKILL.md

## Determining the PR(s)

When this skill is invoked, the PR(s) to update may be specified explicitly, but in the common case, the PR(s) to update will be inferred from the branch / commit that the user is currently working on. For ordinary Git usage (i.e., not Sapling as discussed below), you may have to use a combination of `git branch` and `gh pr view <branch> --repo openai/codex --json number --jq '.number'` to determine the PR associated with the current branch / commit.

## PR Body Contents

When invoked, use `gh` to edit the pull request body and title to reflect the contents of the specified PR. Make sure to check the existing pull request body to see if there is key information that should be preserved. For example, NEVER remove an image in the existing pull request body, as the author may have no way to recover it if you remove it.

It is critically important to explain _why_ the change is being made. If the current conversation in which this skill is invoked has discussed the motivation, be sure to capture this in the pull request body.

The body should also explain _what_ changed, but this should appear after the _why_.

Limit discussion to the _net change_ of the commit. It is generally frowned upon to discuss changes that were attempted but later undone in the course of the development of the pull request. When rewriting the pull request body, you may need to eliminate details such as these when they are no longer appropriate / of interest to future readers.

Avoid references to absolute paths on my local disk. When talking about a path that is within the repository, simply use the repo-relative path.

Avoid references to confidential information including but not limited to codenames or OpenAI-internal URLs.

It is generally helpful to discuss how the change was verified. That said, it is unnecessary to mention things that CI checks automatically, e.g., do not include "ran `just fmt`" as part of the test plan. Though identifying the new tests that were purposely introduced to verify the new behavior introduced by the pull request is often appropriate.

Make use of Markdown to format the pull request professionally. Ensure "code things" appear in single backticks when referenced inline. Fenced code blocks are useful when referencing code or showing a shell transcript. Also, make use of GitHub permalinks when citing existing pieces of code that are relevant to the change.

Make sure to reference any relevant pull requests or issues, though there should be no need to reference the pull request in its own PR body.

If there is documentation that should be updated on https://developers.openai.com/codex as a result of this change, please note that in a separate section near the end of the pull request. Omit this section if there is no documentation that needs to be updated.

## Working with Stacks

Sometimes a pull request is composed of a stack of commits that build on one another. In these cases, the PR body should reflect the _net_ change introduced by the stack as a whole, rather than the individual commits that make up the stack.

Similarly, sometimes a user may be using a tool like Sapling to leverage _stacked pull requests_, in which case the `base` of the PR may be the a branch that is the `head` of another PR in the stack rather than `main`. In this case, be sure to discuss only the net change between the `base` and `head` of the PR that is being opened against that stacked base, rather than the changes relative to `main`.

## Sapling

If `.git/sl/store` is present, then this Git repository is governed by Sapling SCM (https://sapling-scm.com).

In Sapling, run the following to see if there is a GitHub pull request associated with the current revision:

```shell
sl log --template '{github_pull_request_url}' -r .
```

Alternatively, you can run `sl sl` to see the current development branch and whether there is a GitHub pull request associated with the current commit. For example, if the output were:

```
  @  cb032b31cf  72 minutes ago  mbolin  #11412
╭─╯  tui: show non-file layer content in /debug-config
│
o  fdd0cd1de9  Today at 20:09  origin/main
│
~
```

- `@` indicates the current commit is `cb032b31cf`
- it is a development branch containing a single commit branched off of `origin/main`
- it is associated with GitHub pull request #11412
api-abuse-fuzzerSubagent

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".

assumption-pressure-testSubagent

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)

coverage-analyzerSubagent

Generate gcov coverage data for a code repository.

crash-analysis-agentSubagent

Analyze security bugs from any C/C++ project with full root-cause tracing

crash-analyzerSubagent

Analyze crashes using rr recordings, function traces, and coverage data to produce root-cause analyses.

crash-analysis-checkerSubagent

Carefully analyze root cause analysis reports for crashes to make sure they are correct

exploitability-validator-agentSubagent

Multi-stage pipeline to validate vulnerability findings are real, reachable, and exploitable

federated-identity-breakerSubagent

|