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

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./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.

A highly actionable, dense API-fuzzing reference with strong copy-paste payloads and a clear top-level workflow gate. It is held back by missing per-step validation checkpoints in the destructive workflow and by an all-inline structure with no progressive disclosure to reference files.

Suggestions

Add per-step validation checkpoints (e.g., confirm rate limiting before brute force, verify IDOR via response diff) so the destructive workflow has feedback loops and can score above 3 on workflow clarity.

Move the large Tools Reference table and Common Vulnerabilities checklist into separate reference files (e.g. references/tools.md, references/checklists.md) and link them from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Deduplicate the redundant AUTHORIZED USE blockquotes and the Purpose section (which repeats the description) to tighten conciseness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is a dense, reference-style set of tables and copy-paste payloads without explaining concepts Claude already knows, though the duplicated AUTHORIZED USE warnings and the repeated Purpose section are minor padding that could be trimmed.	4 / 5
Actionability	It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands and payloads (Kiterunner scans, curl GraphQL introspection, IDOR bypass variants, XXE/SQLi payloads) covering the common API testing cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear Step 1-5 sequence and a strong pre-execution confirmation gate exist, but the destructive/offensive workflow lacks per-step validation or verify-then-proceed checkpoints; per the destructive-operation cap, this caps workflow clarity at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized with clear headers, but everything is inlined in a single ~450-line file with no external references; large reference tables (Tools Reference, vulnerability checklist) that could live in separate files are 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.

A specific, well-targeted description that names concrete API-testing actions and a distinct niche. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when testing REST, SOAP, or GraphQL APIs during bug bounty hunting or authorized penetration tests.'

Add common synonyms such as 'API security testing' or 'endpoint fuzzing' to broaden natural keyword coverage.

Use third person consistently and ensure the 'when' is as explicit as the 'what' to lift completeness above 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete testing actions across three named protocols (REST, SOAP, GraphQL) plus specific attack classes (authentication bypass, IDOR exploitation, API-specific attack vectors), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.	5 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear and concrete, but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; per the judging guidelines, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3 even though the 'during bug bounty...' phrase weakly implies when.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural keywords a user would say are present ("bug bounty hunting", "penetration testing", "API", "REST/SOAP/GraphQL"), but it omits common synonyms like "API security" or "endpoint testing" that would round out coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear niche (API fuzzing for bug bounty / pentest engagements) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with unrelated 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: sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
Path: skills/api-fuzzing-bug-bounty/SKILL.md
Commit: 1f67c44

Reviewed: about 16 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.