CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

hpp

HTTP Parameter Pollution — parser discrepancies between proxy/server/app, WAF bypass, auth/ACL bypass, injection delivery.

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./packages/decepticon/decepticon/skills/standard/exploit/web/hpp/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A strong, highly operational reference: executable commands dominate, the per-stack precedence table is the decisive knowledge asset, and the decision gate gives real escalation checkpoints. Weaknesses are minor — some repetition of the core exploit pattern across sections, an implicit rather than explicit step sequence, and a bulky table that could be split into a reference file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — an 18-row precedence table, copy-paste curl probes, and no filler explaining concepts Claude already knows. It is not a 5 because the core exploit pattern is restated three times ("The exploitable pattern: WAF/proxy reads value A, app reads value B" in §1, "The WAF inspects one occurrence; the app concatenates / picks the other" in §3, "The auth layer evaluates one value; the controller acts on another" in §4) and the §5 intro repeats §1's framing — minor trimming opportunities; it is well above a 3 since nearly all content earns its place.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: curl commands with --data-urlencode duplicates, a stack-fingerprinting reflection loop, a client-side HPP probe piped to grep, and named tools with exact flags (sqlmap --param-del=';' -p 'q' --skip-urlencode, wfuzz -z list). The per-stack table gives the exact values each parser returns, covering the common cases copy-paste ready. Nothing is pseudocode or hand-wavy.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sections follow a coherent implicit sequence — fingerprint the stack via reflection (§2), attempt WAF bypass (§3), server-side auth/ACL bypass (§4), client-side HPP (§5), injection delivery (§6) — and §9's decision gate provides explicit observation-to-action checkpoints. Not a 5 because the sequence is implicit (sections are topical, not numbered steps) and validation feedback beyond the decision gate is limited to the differential baseline comparison; comfortably above a 3 since the decision gate supplies real checkpoints and the baseline/differential method is explicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A self-contained single-file skill with no bundle directories (references/, scripts/, assets/ absent), so everything must live inline — and it is well organized into nine clearly headed sections with the lookup table as the core asset. Not a 5 because the 18-row parser precedence table is exactly the kind of bulky reference data that could move to a references/ file, and the cross-references at the end point to sibling skill paths that are not part of this bundle; well above a 3 since structure and navigation are clean.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

66%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A concise, concrete description that clearly identifies the niche and its main capabilities, but it omits an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause (those triggers sit in the metadata when_to_use field instead) and misses natural terms like "HPP" and "duplicate parameters" within the description text itself. Adding an explicit trigger clause with those synonyms would lift the weakest dimensions.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause to the description, e.g. "Use when testing duplicate query/body parameters (?a=1&a=2), parameter precedence differences, or WAF bypass via duplicate parameters." — this addresses the completeness cap of 3.

Include the acronym "HPP" and the phrase "duplicate parameters" directly in the description text (currently only in metadata.when_to_use) so natural user phrasings match the description field itself.

Consider stating the primary detection action (e.g. "fingerprints backend stack via duplicate-parameter reflection") to round out the capability list toward full specificity coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("HTTP Parameter Pollution") and lists several concrete capability areas — "parser discrepancies between proxy/server/app", "WAF bypass", "auth/ACL bypass", "injection delivery" — which map to distinct, actionable outcomes. It falls short of a 5 because these are terse noun phrases rather than enumerated actions, and coverage of the skill's actual operations (detection, fingerprinting, tooling) is implied rather than stated; it is clearly above a 3, which requires only 1-2 concrete actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (parser discrepancy exploitation across proxy/WAF/app layers for bypass and injection delivery), but the description field contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — those triggers live in the separate metadata when_to_use field. Per the rubric guideline, a missing explicit "when" in the description caps completeness at 3; it is not a 2 because the "what" is concrete and specific, and not a 4 because no "when" is present even weakly in the description itself.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"HTTP Parameter Pollution", "WAF bypass", "parser discrepancies", and "injection delivery" are terms a user would naturally say when needing this skill. Not a 5 because the description field itself omits common variations users would type — the "HPP" acronym and "duplicate parameters" appear only in the metadata when_to_use field, not in the description; it is above a 3 since several natural, relevant keywords are present.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

HTTP Parameter Pollution is a clearly distinct technique niche with its own trigger vocabulary (duplicate parameters, parser precedence). Minor overlap risk exists with closely related sibling skills the body itself cross-references (waf-bypass, sqli), whose scopes ("WAF bypass", "injection delivery") partially appear in this description; it is not a 5 for that residual overlap, and well above a 3 because the core trigger (parameter pollution/precedence) is unambiguous.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

PurpleAILAB/Decepticon

Path

packages/decepticon/decepticon/skills/standard/exploit/web/hpp/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.