triage-validation
Helps find validation information before writing a report. Ensures reports are based on confirmed facts and data.
What it does
This tool helps verify if a security finding is valid and important before reporting it. It asks a series of questions to ensure the issue is real, relevant, and that you have permission to test it.
When to use it
- ✓When you find a potential security issue.
- ✓Before writing a detailed report about the vulnerability.
- ✓When unsure if the finding is real or if you have permission to test.
Example of what to ask your AI
“Validate this security finding: [describe the finding]”
Want more? Open the sections below.
How to use
The easiest way: copy the message below and paste it into Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor or any AI. It reads the skill and follows the instructions.
Skill link
Ready-to-paste message
How it works
The tool asks a series of 7 questions to validate the finding. If any answer is 'no' or indicates the issue isn't valid, the finding is discarded. It also warns about common pitfalls, like mistaking validation errors for authentication flaws.
Installation
Easiest way: copy the skill link and paste it into Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor asking it to follow the instructions.
In the terminal (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor), in your project folder:
npx skills add sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills --skill triage-validationOr download just the file:
curl -L https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills/main/plugins/agentic-awesome-skills-claude/skills/triage-validation/SKILL.md -o SKILL.mdTechnical content (original SKILL.md)
Original text by the author, straight from GitHub.
⚠️ AUTHORIZED USE ONLY This skill is for educational purposes or authorized security assessments only. You must have explicit, written permission from the system owner before using this tool. Misuse of this tool is illegal and strictly prohibited.
Mandatory confirmation gate Before running any command that probes, exploits, changes, persists on, extracts data from, or attempts credential access against a target:
- Ask the user to state the exact target URL, IP, account, or resource.
- Ask the user to confirm written authorization and the permitted scope.
- Show the exact command(s) and explain their expected effect.
- Wait for explicit confirmation in the current conversation.
Without that confirmation, remain read-only and provide defensive guidance only. Prefer a sandbox, disposable VM, or controlled lab.
TRIAGE & VALIDATION
One wrong answer = STOP this finding. Kill the finding. Move on to the next test class.
Scope of "STOP" in this skill: This skill's gates kill INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS that fail validation. They do NOT authorize stopping the engagement. Killing a finding via the 7-Question Gate just means that finding doesn't get submitted — every other test class in the engagement is still pending. See
redteam-mindset"DO NOT STOP primary directive" for the coverage-axis rule.
"N/A hurts your validity ratio. Informative is neutral. Only submit what passes all 7 questions."
THE 7-QUESTION GATE
Ask IN ORDER. One wrong answer = STOP immediately.
Q1: Can an attacker use this RIGHT NOW, step by step?
Complete this template:
1. Setup: I need [own account / another user's ID / no account]
2. Request: [exact HTTP method, URL, headers, body — copy-paste ready]
3. Result: I can [read / modify / delete] [exact data shown in response]
4. Impact: The real-world consequence is [account takeover / PII read / money stolen]
5. Cost: Time: [X minutes], Capital: [$0 / $X subscription required]
If you CANNOT write step 2 as a real HTTP request → KILL IT.
Q2: Is the impact on the program's accepted impact list?
Go to the program page. Find "Vulnerability Types" or "Out of Scope."
Common tiers:
- Critical: Any-user ATO without interaction, RCE, SQLi with data exfil, admin auth bypass
- High: Mass PII exfil, privilege escalation, internal SSRF with data, stored XSS all users
- Medium: IDOR on specific user non-critical data, XSS on sensitive page requiring click
- Low: Non-sensitive info disclosure, clickjacking with PoC
If your bug maps to a listed exclusion → KILL IT.
Q3: Is the root cause in an in-scope asset?
Confirm:
- Vulnerable domain is on the in-scope list (not
*.internal.target.com) - It's a production asset (not staging/dev unless explicitly in scope)
- It's not a third-party service the company just uses (not Stripe, Salesforce, Google Auth)
If out-of-scope → KILL IT.
Q4: Does it require privileged access that an attacker can't realistically get?
- "Admin can do X" = centralization risk = KILL IT (on 99% of programs)
- "Non-admin can do X that only admin should do" = valid
- "Requires physical access / MFA device" = usually invalid
- "Requires compromised victim account to work" = questionable, low severity at best
Q5: Is this already known or accepted behavior?
Search:
- Program's HackerOne/Bugcrowd disclosed reports: Ctrl+F endpoint name + bug class
- GitHub issues on target repo:
is:issue label:security ENDPOINT_NAME - Changelog/CHANGELOG.md — does it mention this behavior?
- API docs / design docs — is it documented as intended?
If acknowledged/design decision → KILL IT.
Q6: Can you prove impact beyond "technically possible"?
- XSS → show actual cookie theft or session hijack, not just
alert(1)oralert(document.domain) - SSRF → hit an internal endpoint that returns data, not just DNS ping
- SQLi → show actual data exfil from a real table, not just error message
- IDOR → show actual other-user's data in response, not just a 200 status code
If you can only show "technically possible" → DOWNGRADE severity, not kill.
Q7: Is this a known-invalid bug class?
Check the NEVER SUBMIT list below. If it's on this list without a chain → KILL IT.
THE LAYER-ORDERING TRAP — read before claiming any auth bypass
A validation error does NOT prove you passed authentication.
…
FAQ
What does 'kill' a finding mean?
It means the finding is not valid or should not be reported, and you should stop investigating that specific issue and move to the next one.
Why is it important to check authorization?
Testing systems without explicit permission is illegal. This tool ensures you are only testing what you have authorization to test.
What is the 'layer-ordering trap'?
It's a common mistake where a data validation error is mistaken for an authentication flaw. The tool teaches how to test correctly to differentiate between them.
Details
Original description by the author
Finding validation before writing any report
Popularity
- GitHub stars
- 48k
- Ranking position
- #4406
- License
- MIT
- Updated
- 10/15/2026
Comments
- …
More skills from this repository
00-andruia-consultant
Helps your agent start or improve AI projects. It analyzes code, suggests tools, and creates action plans in Spanish.
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
007
Lets your agent perform security audits and threat modeling. It's useful for protecting projects against attacks and vulnerabilities.
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
10-andruia-skill-smith
Helps your agent create or improve AI tools. It defines how tools work, writes documentation, and validates the structure.
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
20-andruia-niche-intelligence
Lets your agent create a summary about a specific industry. It's useful for understanding the context, rules, usage patterns, and risks of a project, using reliable sources.
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Similar skills
cpp-testing
Makes your agent write and improve tests for C++ code. It helps set up testing tools and fix errors.
affaan-m/ECC
csharp-testing
Helps your agent create tests for C# and .NET code. It uses best practices to ensure tests are efficient and reliable.
affaan-m/ECC
django-tdd
Enables your agent to apply testing strategies for Django with pytest-django and TDD. It's useful for writing robust tests and ensuring code quality, especially for DRF APIs.
affaan-m/ECC