Mmcp.market

offensive-reporting skill

by SnailSploit·SnailSploit/Claude-Red·7.0k stars·MIT

Penetration test and red team report writing methodology. Covers executive summary structuring (risk-led narrative for non-technical readers), technical finding format (title, severity, affected scope, narrative, reproduction steps, impact, remediation, references), CVSS v3.1 / v4.0 scoring with vector justification, OWASP risk rating, evidence hygiene (redacting credentials, hashing client data, time-stamping every action), screenshot and PoC artifact management, finding chain narratives, scope/limitations/assumptions documentation, retest evidence and remediation tracking, deliverable formats (PDF, DOCX, HTML, JSON for SIEM ingestion), client-customer-deliverable separation, and common report mistakes (over-CVSSing, undermining the triager, missing the 'so what'). Use at the end of an engagement when authoring a deliverable, when restructuring a draft for executive readability, or when establishing a reusable report template for a consulting practice.

A100/100content scan

Is the offensive-reporting skill safe?

Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 1 file in the folder on 2026-09-28.

No findings.

Install the offensive-reporting skill

A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SnailSploit/Claude-Red.git /tmp/Claude-Red
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -r /tmp/Claude-Red/Skills/utility/offensive-reporting ~/.claude/skills/offensive-reporting
available in every project

In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub

The instructions your agent would load

SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub

Penetration Test Reporting — Professional Methodology

A great finding lost in a bad report is a wasted finding. Reports are the artifact the client pays for, the auditor reads, and the developer fixes from. Treat the report with the same rigor as the exploit.

Quick Workflow

  1. Capture evidence as you exploit — never reconstruct after the fact
  2. Draft each finding immediately while context is fresh; one finding = one numbered file
  3. Build the executive summary last, after all findings are scored
  4. Two-pass review: technical accuracy first, then read-as-CISO for narrative
  5. Hand off with a retest plan and a JSON/CSV index for the client's tracking system

Report Structure (Standard)

1. Executive Summary             ← Last to write, first read
2. Engagement Overview
   2.1 Scope
   2.2 Methodology
   2.3 Limitations / Assumptions
   2.4 Timeline
   2.5 Team
3. Risk Summary                  ← Heatmap, finding count by severity
4. Technical Findings            ← One per finding, sorted by severity
5. Attack Narratives / Chains    ← Critical chains called out separately
6. Strategic Recommendations     ← Programmatic, not finding-by-finding
7. Appendices
   A. Tools Used
   B. Indicators of Compromise (for blue team)
   C. Raw Evidence Pointers
   D. Glossary

Executive Summary — The 90-Second Read

The executive summary is for the CISO, the GRC officer, and the board member. They read this and nothing else.

Structure (one page max):

  1. Engagement context — what was tested, when, by whom (1 sentence)
  2. Headline finding — the worst thing you found, in business terms (2–3 sentences)
  3. Risk verdict — overall posture in plain language (1 paragraph)
  4. Counts — number of findings by severity, in a small table
  5. Top 3 strategic recommendations — programmatic fixes, not "patch CVE-X"

Words to avoid in the executive summary: payload, RCE, XSS, LDAP, SMB, kerberos, injection. Translate every one. ("An attacker could run arbitrary commands on the server" not "RCE via deserialization gadget chain.")

Words to include: Business impact (customer data, regulatory exposure, operational disruption, financial loss). Anchor every finding to a business consequence.

Technical Finding Template

## Finding ID — Short Descriptive Title

**Severity:** Critical (CVSS 9.8 — vector below)
**Affected Scope:** <hosts/URLs/components, with version where relevant>
**Status:** Open / Fixed in retest / Accepted Risk
**CWE:** CWE-89 (SQL Injection)
**OWASP:** A03:2021 — Injection

### Summary
One paragraph. What is the finding, why does it matter, what's the worst case.

### Background
What technology is involved and why this class of bug exists. Two paragraphs max.
Skip if obvious (e.g. don't explain XSS to an XSS shop).

### Description
Detailed walkthrough of the issue. The root cause, not just the symptom.

### Reproduction Steps
1. Numbered, copy-paste ready.
2. Include the exact request/response, redacted.
3. A reader with no engagement context should reproduce in <15 minutes.

### Evidence
- `screenshots/finding-007/01-payload.png`
- `requests/finding-007/initial-poc.http`
- `evidence-log.csv` line 142 (timestamp 2025-04-12 14:33:07Z)

### Impact
Concrete. Quantified where possible.
- "Read access to the entire customer table (~2.3M records)"
- "Authenticate as any user; verified for sample ID 1, 2, 999, 1000000"
- "Cross-tenant access — verified by reading data from acquired-t

Severity Scoring

CVSS v3.1 Discipline

CVSS is a tool, not a verdict. Score it, then sanity-check against business impact.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H = 9.8 Critical

For every metric, justify the choice in one sentence:

  • AV:N — exposed to internet (port 443)
  • AC:L — no special preconditions
  • PR:N — no authentication needed
  • UI:N — no user interaction
  • S:U — does not cross security scope
  • C:H I:H A:H — full read/write/availability impact on the database

If two reasonable people would score it differently, document why you chose what you chose.

When CVSS Lies

CVSS doesn't capture business context. A "Medium" CVSS XSS in the customer support chat panel that authenticated agents use to handle PII is more dangerous than an unauthenticated "High" SSRF on a metadata-less internal service. Use CVSS as the floor, not the ceiling.

In those cases, score CVSS honestly and then add a "Business Impact Adjustment" paragraph that argues for higher reporting severity. Don't lie with CVSS.

CVSS v4.0 (where required)

CVSS v4.0 adds environmental and threat metrics that better capture real-world risk. Use it when the client mandates it (PCI DSS 4.0 trends this way) — otherwise v3.1 stays the lingua franca.

OWASP Risk Rating (alternative)

For web-app-only engagements where CVSS feels stretched, OWASP's risk rating (likelihood × impact across multiple factors) often communicates better.

Evidence Discipline

What to Capture

For every finding, every action:

  1. Timestamp (UTC, ISO 8601)
  2. Source IP (yours, including any pivot)
  3. Target (host, URL, RPC interface)
  4. Action (what request was sent)
  5. Result (response, what you got)
  6. Hash of any data extracted (so you can prove what you saw)
timestamp,operator,src_ip,target,action,result_hash,notes
2025-04-12T14:33:07Z,KA,10.10.10.5,app.client.com,SQLi probe ' OR 1=1--,sha256:abc...,initial detection

This is the audit trail. Clients with mature security teams will ask for it.

Redaction Rules

Before any artifact leaves your secure environment:

  • Replace credentials with placeholders: ,
  • Hash extracted PII — never include real names, emails, SSNs in screenshots
  • Crop screenshots to the relevant area; check for browser tab leaks (other tabs visible)
  • Strip EXIF from images; auto-redact via exiftool -all= *.png
  • Remove debug toolbars from screenshots that reveal client infrastructure paths
  • Verify URLs in screenshots don't include session tokens

Storage & Chain of Custody

  • Encrypted volume during the engagement (LUKS, FileVault, BitLocker)
  • Per-engagement key, not a master operator key
  • Wipe to client-spec at end of engagement (typically 30–90 days post-delivery)
  • Retain only the report and a hash manifest of evidence, deletable on request

Scope, Limitations, and Assumptions

These three sections protect both you and the client. Be explicit.

Scope

  • IPs / domains / repos / accounts in scope, with start/end of engagement window
  • Excluded: third-party SaaS used by the client (they don't own it)
  • Out of scope by request: physical, social engineering against staff, DoS

Limitations

  • "Testing was conducted from the internet only; no internal network access provided"
  • "Source code review was not in scope"
  • "Production database mutations were avoided per ROE"
  • "No coordinated downtime — testing windows were 22:00–06:00 UTC"

Assumptions

  • "We assumed the staging environment mirrors production"
  • "We assumed the WAF in front of app.client.com is the same as production"
  • "Service accounts with admin rights were assumed pre-existing"

Risk Summary & Heatmap

Show, don't tell. A visual summary every executive can read in 5 seconds:

Severity   Count   Top Example
Critical     3     RCE via deserialization (Finding #2)
High         7     ADCS ESC1 → Domain Admin (Finding #11)
Medium      14     Stored XSS in customer support panel (Finding #4)
Low         22     TLS 1.0 still enabled on api.client.com (Finding #29)
Info        11     —

A simple bar chart or stoplight grid converts this to a one-glance summary. Put it on page 2 (after exec summary).

Attack Chains / Narratives

Critical findings rarely matter in isolation. The chain is the story:

1. Phishing email → user runs HTA payload (Finding #1, Medium)
2. Local UAC bypass via Token Manipulation (Finding #5, Low)
3. Kerberoast service account (Finding #11, High)
4. Crack TGS offline → service account password (Finding #11)
5. ACL abuse: service account has WriteDacl on Domain Users (Finding #14, High)
6. Grant DCSync, dump krbtgt → Golden Ticket → Domain Admin (Finding #15, Critical)

Total time: 4 hours. Detection points missed: 3 (see Appendix B).

Highlight chains separately because the combination often warrants higher severity than any individual finding.

Strategic Recommendations

Below the per-finding remediations, write 3–5 programmatic recommendations:

  • "Adopt SAST in CI for Java services" (addresses 12 findings)
  • "Roll out tier-0 admin model for AD" (addresses entire AD attack chain)
  • "Centralize secrets in HashiCorp Vault; rotate hardcoded creds" (addresses 9 findings)

This is what the CISO presents to the board. Make it memorable.

Deliverable Formats

More skills from SnailSploit/Claude-Red

  • Aoffensive-active-directoryActive Directory attack methodology for internal network red team engagements. Covers reconnaissance (BloodHound, PowerView, ADExplorer), credential abuse (Kerberoasting, ASREProasting, NTLM relay, LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning), privilege escalation (ACL abuse, GPO abuse, unconstrained/constrained delegation), lateral movement (Pass-the-Hash, Pass-the-Ticket, Overpass-the-Hash, WMI/WinRM/PsExec), persistence (Golden/Silver/Diamond Tickets, DCSync, DCShadow, AdminSDHolder, Skeleton Key), forest trust attacks, ADCS abuse (ESC1-ESC15), and modern MDI/Defender for Identity evasion. Use when assessing on-prem AD, hybrid AD/Entra ID environments, or ADCS deployments.
  • Aoffensive-advanced-redteamComprehensive red team operations methodology covering full engagement lifecycle from planning through reporting. Addresses engagement scoping and rules of engagement negotiation, multi-tier C2 infrastructure design with redirectors and domain fronting, malleable traffic profiles and beacon tradecraft, OPSEC discipline including attribution avoidance and indicator management, EDR and AMSI evasion techniques using direct syscalls and unhooking, data collection with chain-of-custody controls, and structured reporting with purple team debrief workflows. Covers assumed-breach, external-to-internal, insider threat, and hybrid physical-cyber engagement scenarios with MITRE ATT&CK mapping throughout. Targets operators planning or executing adversary simulation engagements against mature defenders.
  • Coffensive-ai-security
  • Aoffensive-anti-forensicsAnti-forensics and evidence destruction techniques for red team operators conducting authorized engagements. Covers log clearing on Windows (wevtutil, Clear-EventLog, ETW provider patching) and Linux (journal truncation, utmp/wtmp binary editing, syslog manipulation), timestamp manipulation via Timestomp and SetMACE to defeat timeline analysis, filesystem-level anti-forensics including NTFS Alternate Data Streams for payload hiding and secure deletion with sdelete/shred, memory artifact removal to counter live forensics, disk artifact manipulation targeting MFT entries and USN journal records, network forensics evasion through encrypted C2 channels and DNS-over-HTTPS tunneling, and anti-VM/sandbox detection to avoid dynamic analysis environments. Tools: Timestomp, wevtutil, sdelete, shred, MimiPenguin, Invoke-Phant0m. Aligns to MITRE ATT&CK T1070 (Indicator Removal), T1027 (Obfuscated Files or Information), T1497 (Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion). Each technique includes the forensic artifact it targets, the destruction or manipulation method, and the defender perspective so operators understand detection gaps they must account for.
  • Aoffensive-api-abuseAdvanced API exploitation methodology focused on business logic abuse and sophisticated attack patterns that bypass traditional security controls. Covers business logic bypass through API call chaining and workflow manipulation. Addresses GraphQL-specific attacks including batching for credential brute-force, query depth exploitation, and introspection abuse. Includes pagination exploitation for data exfiltration, webhook hijacking for SSRF and data interception, and resource exhaustion through algorithmic complexity attacks. Covers race conditions in API transactions using parallel request techniques. Provides comprehensive JWT manipulation including algorithm confusion, kid injection, jku/x5u abuse, and claim tampering. Details API key leakage detection across source repositories, client-side code, and error messages. Covers undocumented endpoint discovery through predictable naming, debug routes, and source map analysis. Tooling includes Arjun, ParamSpider, jwt_tool, and GraphQL Voyager. Designed for authorized penetration testers targeting business logic layers that automated scanners miss.
  • Aoffensive-api-securityComprehensive API security testing methodology covering REST, gRPC, and WebSocket attack surfaces. Addresses the full OWASP API Security Top 10 2023 including BOLA/IDOR, broken authentication, excessive data exposure, rate limiting bypass, BFLA, mass assignment, SSRF, and security misconfiguration. Includes REST-specific attacks such as HTTP verb tampering, content-type switching, and parameter pollution. Covers gRPC exploitation through protobuf interception, reflection API enumeration, and metadata injection. Addresses WebSocket vulnerabilities including origin bypass, message injection, and cross-site WebSocket hijacking. Provides tooling guidance for Burp Suite, Postman, grpcurl, websocat, and mitmproxy. Each technique includes detection signatures and defensive indicators so you understand what artifacts your testing leaves behind. Designed for authorized penetration testing engagements against API-driven architectures.
  • Aoffensive-bluetooth-bleBluetooth Low Energy (BLE) attack methodology — GATT enumeration, characteristic read/write without auth, pairing downgrade (Just Works forced), LE Secure Connections bypass, MITM via active relay, sniffing with Sniffle (TI CC1352) / Ubertooth / Frontline, encryption key extraction (LE Legacy Pairing crackable, LE Secure Connections strong), proximity authentication abuse (cars, locks), and companion-app trust analysis. Use for IoT BLE devices, smart locks, fitness trackers, medical devices, BLE beacons, or any device pairing over BLE.
  • Aoffensive-bluetooth-classicBluetooth Classic (BR/EDR) attack methodology — device discovery, service enumeration via SDP, LMP/L2CAP layer attacks, legacy PIN cracking (BlueBorne / KNOB), Bluetooth file-transfer abuse (BlueSnarfing legacy), unauthenticated profile abuse (HSP, HFP, OPP), and modern relevance against older industrial / automotive / accessory targets. Use when in-scope devices use Bluetooth Classic (Bluetooth ≤ 4.0 BR/EDR) — common in legacy car kits, industrial sensors, older medical devices, and audio accessories.
  • Aoffensive-bug-identification
  • Aoffensive-business-logicBusiness logic vulnerability testing for web/mobile/API engagements. Covers workflow bypass, state machine violations, multi-step process abuse, price/quantity/discount manipulation, currency confusion, coupon stacking, refund/chargeback abuse, race conditions on logic boundaries, parameter tampering for hidden flows, role/tenant boundary violations, time-of-check vs use, anti-automation defeat, fraud-detection evasion, and subscription/quota abuse. Use when scoping an application after surface-level OWASP Top 10 has been covered, or when the asset is a transactional/marketplace/fintech/e-commerce/SaaS app where logic flaws produce direct financial impact.
  • Aoffensive-c2-frameworksCommand and Control framework deployment, configuration, and operational tradecraft for red team engagements. Covers Cobalt Strike (malleable C2 profiles, Beacon types HTTP/HTTPS/DNS/SMB, Beacon Object Files for in-memory execution, sleep and jitter tuning, named pipe pivoting), Sliver (implant generation across mTLS/WireGuard/DNS transport, operator multiplayer mode, armory extensions), Mythic (agent ecosystem with Apollo/Poseidon/Medusa, C2 profile configuration, translation containers), Havoc (Demon agent with sleep obfuscation via Ekko/Zilean, indirect syscalls, dotnet inline execution), Metasploit (msfvenom payload generation, multi/handler staging, Meterpreter post-exploitation modules), redirector architecture using Apache mod_rewrite and Nginx, domain fronting through CDN providers, DNS-based C2 for restrictive network egress, and TLS certificate management for infrastructure OPSEC. Tools: Cobalt Strike, Sliver, Mythic, Havoc, Metasploit Framework. Aligns to MITRE ATT&CK T1071 (Application Layer Protocol), T1573 (Encrypted Channel), T1090 (Proxy/Connection Proxy).
  • Doffensive-cicd-pipelineComprehensive CI/CD pipeline exploitation methodology covering GitHub Actions injection vectors (expression injection via PR titles and issue bodies, workflow_run event abuse, GITHUB_TOKEN over-scoping, composite action supply chain compromise), Jenkins attack paths (Groovy sandbox escapes, script console remote code execution, Java remoting deserialization, credential store dumping, shared library injection), GitLab CI exploitation (YAML anchor injection, runner registration token abuse, CI variable extraction, protected branch bypass via merge request pipelines), and Azure DevOps pipeline agent compromise with service connection theft. Includes artifact poisoning techniques across all platforms, tooling guidance for gato and jenkins-attack-framework, and maps to MITRE ATT&CK T1195.002 (Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain). Covers enumeration of pipeline configurations, privilege escalation from contributor to code execution, lateral movement through pipeline trust boundaries, and persistence via modified workflow definitions. Each technique section provides working exploitation code, detection indicators, and defensive countermeasures.

All agent skills → · MCP servers