CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

api-fuzzing-bug-bounty

Provide comprehensive techniques for testing REST, SOAP, and GraphQL APIs during bug bounty hunting and penetration testing engagements. Covers vulnerability discovery, authentication bypass, IDOR exploitation, and API-specific attack vectors.

53

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/api-fuzzing-bug-bounty/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

53%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 rich, concrete reference with executable payloads and a clear core workflow, but it is monolithic: no bundle files, heavy reference tables inlined, duplicated sections, and no validation checkpoints in the workflow. It reads as a cheat sheet pasted into SKILL.md rather than a progressive-disclosure skill.

Suggestions

Split the GraphQL deep-dive, the tools tables, and the payload collections into references/ files (e.g., references/graphql.md, references/tools.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise workflow overview with clearly signaled links.

De-duplicate: remove the repeated introspection query, the duplicated IDOR and SSRF examples, the redundant second tools table, and the circular 'When to Use' and verbatim Purpose sections.

Add validation checkpoints to the workflow (e.g., confirm a payload change actually altered the response before reporting an IDOR, verify tools are installed/paths to wordlists like routes-large.kite).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly dense payload lists and tables with little concept-explanation padding, but it contains redundant sections: the Purpose restates the description verbatim, the introspection query appears twice, IDOR examples are shown in Step 3 and again in Example 1, SSRF payloads are duplicated, tools appear in two separate tables, and the 'When to Use' section is circular filler.

3 / 5

Actionability

Most guidance is copy-paste ready: concrete curl commands, GraphQL queries, bypass path lists, tool commands, and payload tables. Minor gaps remain — arrow-notation transformations (e.g., 'GET /api/users/1234 → GET /api/users/1235') are not literal requests, and 'routes-large.kite' is referenced without a source.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step core workflow is sequenced (recon → auth → IDOR → injection → method testing), but there are no validation checkpoints or explicit feedback loops; the troubleshooting table only implicitly serves as error recovery, capping the score at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single-file monolith of ~430 lines with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories. Reference-heavy material — the 20-row Tools Reference table, the GraphQL deep-dive, and the full payload collections — clearly belongs in separate files but is fully inlined; section headers exist, but nothing is split out or offloaded.

2 / 5

Total

12

/

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 solid description that names the domain and several concrete capabilities with natural trigger keywords. Its main weakness is the missing explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness, plus minor generic padding at the end.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g., 'Use when the user mentions API testing, bug bounty targets, REST/SOAP/GraphQL endpoints, IDOR, or API penetration testing.'

Replace the vague 'API-specific attack vectors' with one or two concrete examples (e.g., 'mass assignment, JWT weaknesses, HTTP method tampering').

Drop the filler word 'comprehensive' — the listed techniques already convey breadth.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions ('vulnerability discovery, authentication bypass, IDOR exploitation') alongside the named domain (REST/SOAP/GraphQL API testing), but 'comprehensive techniques' and 'API-specific attack vectors' are generic padding that keep it from comprehensive, fully concrete coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; the phrase 'during bug bounty hunting and penetration testing engagements' only weakly implies when to use the skill, so completeness is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms users would say are present: 'REST, SOAP, and GraphQL APIs', 'bug bounty', 'penetration testing', 'IDOR'. A few common synonyms are missing (e.g., 'API security', 'pentest', 'endpoint testing').

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (API security testing with named techniques like IDOR and GraphQL) is mostly distinct with specific triggers, though it could overlap with a general web-application pentesting skill.

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Path

plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/api-fuzzing-bug-bounty/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.