AB ios-redteam-pipeline
End-to-end iOS red-team pipeline — IPA acquisition (App Store extraction, TestFlight, enterprise/ad-hoc sideload), class-dump/Hopper/Ghidra static analysis, Info.plist + entitlements + Keychain secret extraction, App Transport Security (ATS) misconfig + certificate-pinning bypass (frida-ios-dump, objection, SSL Kill Switch 2), URL-scheme / Universal Link hijack, exported-service enumeration, Frida runtime instrumentation. Companion to apk-redteam-pipeline for the iOS side of a mobile app catalogue. Use when target has an iOS app (App Store listing, TestFlight link, enterprise MDM distribution), when an IPA URL is found hosted on a web server, or when post-recon mentions "iOS app" / "mobile app" in scope alongside an Apple developer account.
End-to-end iOS red-team pipeline — IPA acquisition (App Store extraction, TestFlight, enterprise/ad-hoc sideload), class-dump/Hopper/Ghidra static analysis…
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- 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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:14Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Bug bounty program lists iOS in scope
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "sources" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "report_count" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 29, 160): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 65/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 25 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3424 tokens
- low 12 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 2 example trigger phrases
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 750: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 20 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 25 items
- +4Has examples (14 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.