/validate
Validate a finding — runs 7-Question Gate + 4-gate checklist. Kills weak findings before report writing. Prevents N/A submissions that hurt validity ratio. Usage: /validate
> /plugin marketplace add elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter > /plugin install claude-bughunter@elementalsouls
How it fires
How this command gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfClaude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/validate
Context preview
What this command does when you run it.
Validate a finding — runs 7-Question Gate + 4-gate checklist. Kills weak findings before report writing. Prevents N/A submissions that hurt validity ratio. Usage: /validate
Command definition
validate.mdname: validate
description: Validate a finding — runs 7-Question Gate + 4-gate checklist. Kills weak findings before report writing. Prevents N/A submissions that hurt validity ratio. Usage: /validate
/validate
Run full validation on the current finding before writing a report.
What This Does
1. Runs 7-Question Gate (one wrong answer = kill it) 2. Checks against the always-rejected list 3. Runs 4 pre-submission gates 4. Outputs: PASS (write the report) or KILL (move on)
Usage
/validate
Describe the finding when prompted. Include:
- The endpoint
- The bug class
- What the PoC shows
- The target program
The 7-Question Gate
Answer each. ONE wrong answer = STOP.
Q1: Can I demonstrate this step-by-step RIGHT NOW?
Write this out:
1. Setup: I need [own account / another user's ID / no account]
2. Request: [exact HTTP method, URL, headers, body]
3. Result: Response shows [exact data / action completed]
4. Impact: Real consequence is [account takeover / PII exposed / money stolen]
5. Cost: Time: [X min], Capital: [$0 / $X]
If step 2 is "I need to look at the code more" → KILL IT.
Q2: Is the impact accepted by this program?
Check program scope page. Is your bug class listed? Is it excluded?
Q3: Is the vulnerable asset in scope?
Exact domain in scope? Not staging/dev? Not a third-party service?
Q4: Does it need admin or privileged access that an attacker can't get?
"Admin can do X" → KILL IT. "Regular user can do X that only admin should" → valid.
Q5: Is this known or documented behavior?
Search disclosed reports + changelog + API docs.
Q6: Can you prove impact beyond "technically possible"?
- XSS → actual cookie value in exfil request, not just alert()
- SSRF → response body from internal service, not just DNS callback
- IDOR → actual other-user's private data in response, not just 200 status
Q7: Is this on the never-submit list?
Missing headers, GraphQL introspection alone, clickjacking without PoC,
self-XSS, open redirect alone, SSRF DNS-only, logout CSRF, banner disclosure,
rate limit on non-critical forms, missing cookie flags alone...
If yes → KILL IT unless you have a chain.
Check: Conditionally Valid?
If it's on the never-submit list, can you chain it?
| You Have | Chain Available? | |---|---| | Open redirect | + OAuth code theft → ATO? | | SSRF DNS-only | + internal service data? | | Clickjacking | + sensitive action + PoC? | | CORS wildcard | + credentialed data exfil? | | Prompt injection | + IDOR → other user's data? |
If no chain → KILL IT. If chain confirmed → report both together.
4 Gates — All Must Pass
**Gate 0 (30 sec):**
[ ] Confirmed with real HTTP requests (not just code reading)
[ ] In scope (checked program page)
[ ] Reproducible from scratch
[ ] Evidence captured
**Gate 1 — Impact (2 min):**
[ ] Can answer "What does attacker walk away with?"
[ ] More than "sees non-sensitive data"
[ ] Real victim exists
[ ] No unlikely preconditions
**Gate 2 — Dedup (5 min):**
[ ] Searched HackerOne Hacktivity for endpoint + bug class
[ ] Searched GitHub issues
[ ] Read 5 most recent disclosed reports
[ ] Not in changelog as known issue
**Gate 3 — Report quality (10 min):**
[ ] Title formula: [Class] in [Endpoint] allows [actor] to [impact]
[ ] Steps have exact HTTP request
[ ] Evidence shows actual impact
[ ] CVSS calculated
[ ] Fix: 1-2 concrete sentences
Output
**PASS:** "All 7 questions pass. All 4 gates pass. Proceed to /report."
**KILL:** "Q[N] fails because [reason]. Kill this finding. Reason: [explanation]. Move on."
**DOWNGRADE:** "Q6 only shows technical possibility. Downgrade from High to Medium. Requires showing actual data exfil in PoC."
Read more
name: validate description: Validate a finding — runs 7-Question Gate + 4-gate checklist. Kills weak findings before report writing. Prevents N/A submissions that hurt validity ratio. Usage: /validate
/validate
Run full validation on the current finding before writing a report.
What This Does
1. Runs 7-Question Gate (one wrong answer = kill it) 2. Checks against the always-rejected list 3. Runs 4 pre-submission gates 4. Outputs: PASS (write the report) or KILL (move on)
Usage
/validate
Describe the finding when prompted. Include:
- The endpoint
- The bug class
- What the PoC shows
- The target program
The 7-Question Gate
Answer each. ONE wrong answer = STOP.
Q1: Can I demonstrate this step-by-step RIGHT NOW?
Write this out:
1. Setup: I need [own account / another user's ID / no account] 2. Request: [exact HTTP method, URL, headers, body] 3. Result: Response shows [exact data / action completed] 4. Impact: Real consequence is [account takeover / PII exposed / money stolen] 5. Cost: Time: [X min], Capital: [$0 / $X]
If step 2 is "I need to look at the code more" → KILL IT.
Q2: Is the impact accepted by this program?
Check program scope page. Is your bug class listed? Is it excluded?
Q3: Is the vulnerable asset in scope?
Exact domain in scope? Not staging/dev? Not a third-party service?
Q4: Does it need admin or privileged access that an attacker can't get?
"Admin can do X" → KILL IT. "Regular user can do X that only admin should" → valid.
Q5: Is this known or documented behavior?
Search disclosed reports + changelog + API docs.
Q6: Can you prove impact beyond "technically possible"?
- XSS → actual cookie value in exfil request, not just alert()
- SSRF → response body from internal service, not just DNS callback
- IDOR → actual other-user's private data in response, not just 200 status
Q7: Is this on the never-submit list?
Missing headers, GraphQL introspection alone, clickjacking without PoC, self-XSS, open redirect alone, SSRF DNS-only, logout CSRF, banner disclosure, rate limit on non-critical forms, missing cookie flags alone...
If yes → KILL IT unless you have a chain.
Check: Conditionally Valid?
If it's on the never-submit list, can you chain it?
| You Have | Chain Available? | |---|---| | Open redirect | + OAuth code theft → ATO? | | SSRF DNS-only | + internal service data? | | Clickjacking | + sensitive action + PoC? | | CORS wildcard | + credentialed data exfil? | | Prompt injection | + IDOR → other user's data? |
If no chain → KILL IT. If chain confirmed → report both together.
4 Gates — All Must Pass
**Gate 0 (30 sec):**
[ ] Confirmed with real HTTP requests (not just code reading) [ ] In scope (checked program page) [ ] Reproducible from scratch [ ] Evidence captured
**Gate 1 — Impact (2 min):**
[ ] Can answer "What does attacker walk away with?" [ ] More than "sees non-sensitive data" [ ] Real victim exists [ ] No unlikely preconditions
**Gate 2 — Dedup (5 min):**
[ ] Searched HackerOne Hacktivity for endpoint + bug class [ ] Searched GitHub issues [ ] Read 5 most recent disclosed reports [ ] Not in changelog as known issue
**Gate 3 — Report quality (10 min):**
[ ] Title formula: [Class] in [Endpoint] allows [actor] to [impact] [ ] Steps have exact HTTP request [ ] Evidence shows actual impact [ ] CVSS calculated [ ] Fix: 1-2 concrete sentences
Output
**PASS:** "All 7 questions pass. All 4 gates pass. Proceed to /report."
**KILL:** "Q[N] fails because [reason]. Kill this finding. Reason: [explanation]. Move on."
**DOWNGRADE:** "Q6 only shows technical possibility. Downgrade from High to Medium. Requires showing actual data exfil in PoC."
A self-contained Claude skill bundle for bug hunting and external red-team work · 82 skills · 15 slash commands · 681 disclosed-report patterns across 24 core vulnerability classes · enterprise identity + infrastructure attack matrices · engagement-folder
Repo: elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter
Other commands on claude-bughunter.
- /autopilot
Run autonomous hunt loop on a target — scope check → recon → rank surface → hunt → validate → report with configurable checkpoints. Usage: /autopilot target.com [--paranoid|--normal|--yolo]
Open command - /chain
Build an exploit chain — given bug A, finds B and C to combine for higher severity and payout. Knows common chain patterns: IDOR→ATO, SSRF→cloud metadata, XSS→ATO, open redirect→OAuth theft, S3→bundle→secret→OAuth. Usage: /chain
Open command - /hunt
Active vulnerability hunting. Two-track dispatcher — asks Red Team vs WAPT, hands off to hunt-dispatch skill and sibling commands. Usage: /hunt target.com | /hunt *.target.com | /hunt targets.txt [--vuln-class X] [--source-code P] [--chrome]
Open command - /intel
On-demand intelligence fetch for a target — CVEs, disclosed reports, new features. Pulls NVD/GitHub-Advisory CVEs + bundled disclosed reports + hunt memory context. Usage: /intel target.com
Open command - /memory-gc
Inspect or rotate the autopilot ledger JSONL files (findings.jsonl, negatives.jsonl). Caps file size and keeps N rotated backups so memory does not grow unbounded.
Open command - /pickup
Pick up a previous hunt on a target — shows hunt history and untested surface from the autopilot ledger. Usage: /pickup target.com
Open command

