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.

SKILL.md

Quality

Evals

Security

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)

Repository: HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard
Path: .agents/skills/common/common-exploit-verification/SKILL.md
Commit: 1fa7789

Last updated: 4 days ago
First committed: 5 months ago

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.