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.

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

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

Quality

Content

72%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.

The content is highly actionable with copy-paste payloads and a clear workflow sequence, but it lacks validation checkpoints for destructive operations and inlines ~430 lines with no progressive disclosure into bundle files. Adding authorization/verification gates and splitting reference material would lift the two weakest dimensions.

Suggestions

Add explicit validation checkpoints in the workflow: confirm written authorization/scope before testing, and verify each finding (e.g. reproduce, confirm cross-user impact) before reporting.

Move the large reference tables (Tools Reference, Common Vulnerabilities Checklist, Quick Reference) into bundled files under references/ and link to them one level deep from SKILL.md.

De-duplicate the overlapping vulnerability entries across the Quick Reference and Common Vulnerabilities Checklist tables to tighten token efficiency.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean executable payloads and tables with little concept-padding, but the vulnerability information is duplicated across the Quick Reference, Common Vulnerabilities Checklist, and Tools Reference tables, leaving minor trim opportunities that keep it just below a 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	It provides copy-paste-ready commands and payloads across the common cases — 'kr scan https://target.com -w routes-large.kite', JSON/GraphQL SQLi payloads, curl introspection, and concrete 403-bypass paths — fully executable guidance.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1–5 provide a clear sequence, but this destructive/batch offensive skill has no validation or verification checkpoints (no authorization-scope confirmation, no 'confirm finding before reporting' feedback loop), so the destructive-operations cap at 3 applies.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	All ~430 lines are inlined in SKILL.md with no bundle files and no references to separate files; section headers give some structure, but bulk content (Tools Reference, full GraphQL testing, checklist) that belongs in separate files is inline.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

75%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.

The description is specific and distinctive with strong natural trigger terms, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, capping completeness at 3. Adding concrete trigger guidance would lift the weakest dimension.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when testing APIs for bug bounty or pentest engagements, or when the user mentions API fuzzing, IDOR, or API authentication bypass.'

Include common synonyms like 'API fuzzing', 'API security testing', and 'BOLA' to broaden natural trigger coverage.

Keep the concrete action list as-is — it already gives comprehensive, distinctive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the API-testing domain and lists multiple concrete actions — 'vulnerability discovery, authentication bypass, IDOR exploitation, and API-specific attack vectors' — giving comprehensive coverage rather than the minor gaps of a 4.	5 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear, but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause — 'when' is only weakly implied via the 'during bug bounty hunting and penetration testing engagements' context, so the missing-trigger cap at 3 applies.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms like 'REST, SOAP, and GraphQL APIs', 'bug bounty hunting', and 'penetration testing' are present, but synonyms such as 'API fuzzing' or 'API security' are missing, falling short of the full synonym coverage of a 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear niche (API fuzzing for bug bounty/pentest) with distinct triggers (REST/SOAP/GraphQL APIs) and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Criteria	Description	Result
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
Commit: 900c504

Reviewed: 5 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.