SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC hunt-forgot-password

Hunt Forgot Password / Account Recovery Authentication Flaws — 5 distinct patterns: (1) username enumeration via different responses for valid vs invalid email, (2) reset token exposed directly in the API response body, (3) reset token not invalidated after use (replay), (4) password reset link works from a different IP/browser (no binding), (5) no rate limit on the reset request endpoint. These are the standalone recovery-flow broken-auth primitives — distinct from reset-email host-header poisoning (hunt-host-header) and the full ATO chain (hunt-ato owns password-reset as an ATO path; prove the primitive here, chain it there). Detection: trace the full forgot-password flow from request to token to use; check response diffs between valid/invalid emails; test token replay after consumption. Medium to High (enumeration=Medium, token-reuse=High, account-takeover=Critical when chained to known-email).

elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter Agent Skills author: elementalsouls 1 file body ≈ 1 184 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 h ago

Hunt Forgot Password / Account Recovery Authentication Flaws — 5 distinct patterns: (1) username enumeration via different responses for valid vs invalid…

As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

IntegrationSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
90/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
75
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
59/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "sources"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "report_count"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 59/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 18 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1184 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Description length 910: 120–800 characters recommended
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Structure: 8 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.