CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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.

55

Quality

62%

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

Quality

Content

42%Scale 1-3

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

The skill excels at actionability with concrete, executable payloads and real-world attack patterns that are immediately usable. However, it is severely bloated — it reads like a comprehensive cheat sheet dumped into a single file rather than a well-structured skill. The lack of progressive disclosure (everything inline), redundant content (Quick Reference duplicates earlier sections), unnecessary explanations (API types table, IDOR definition), and missing validation checkpoints significantly reduce its effectiveness as a SKILL.md.

Suggestions

Extract the tools reference table, GraphQL-specific testing, and endpoint bypass techniques into separate referenced files (e.g., GRAPHQL.md, TOOLS.md, BYPASSES.md) and link to them from a concise overview.

Remove content Claude already knows: the API Types Overview table, the explanation of what IDOR is, the 'Purpose' section restating the description, and the tautological 'When to Use' section.

Eliminate the redundant 'Quick Reference' table that duplicates information already covered in the workflow steps.

Add explicit validation checkpoints: verify authorization scope before testing, confirm findings with a second request before documenting, and include a pre-engagement checklist to ensure safe/authorized testing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is extremely verbose at ~350+ lines, includes unnecessary sections like 'API Types Overview' table (Claude knows this), explains what IDOR is, lists extensive tool URLs that could be in a separate reference file, and includes a redundant 'Quick Reference' table that duplicates earlier content. The 'When to Use' section is a meaningless tautology.

1 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides concrete, copy-paste ready payloads, specific curl commands, exact file paths to check, real tool names with usage examples, and executable test patterns for IDOR, SQLi, GraphQL introspection, and other attack vectors. The examples are specific and directly usable.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-5 provide a reasonable sequence for API testing, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops. For security testing involving potentially destructive operations (DoS attempts, injection testing), there's no guidance on verifying scope authorization, confirming you're in the right environment, or validating findings before escalation.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a monolithic wall of content with everything inlined — the massive tools reference table, GraphQL-specific testing, endpoint bypass techniques, and output exploitation could all be separate reference files. There are no links to external detail files; everything is dumped into a single document making it extremely long.

1 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

82%Scale 1-3

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

This is a strong description with excellent specificity and trigger term coverage for its security testing niche. It clearly lists concrete capabilities and uses natural terminology that security professionals would employ. The main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which would help Claude know precisely when to select this skill.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about API security testing, API pentesting, bug bounty API targets, or exploiting API vulnerabilities.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: testing REST/SOAP/GraphQL APIs, vulnerability discovery, authentication bypass, IDOR exploitation, and API-specific attack vectors. These are concrete, actionable capabilities.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers 'what does this do' with specific techniques and API types, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. The when is only implied through context (bug bounty, pentesting).

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'REST', 'SOAP', 'GraphQL', 'API', 'bug bounty', 'penetration testing', 'authentication bypass', 'IDOR'. These cover the terms a security professional would naturally use.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with a clear niche: API security testing in bug bounty/pentest contexts. The combination of specific API types (REST, SOAP, GraphQL) with specific attack vectors (IDOR, auth bypass) makes it unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
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.