using-omv

name	using-omv
description	Bootstrap discipline for oh-my-vul research. Use at the start of any vulnerability research conversation, when the user asks to audit/find/report a package, dig for CVEs, or run omv skills — and before claiming a finding is confirmed, ready to submit, or “done”. Establishes mandatory process, hard gates, and evidence-before-claims rules. Prefer this over improvising a research workflow.

using-omv

High-quality growth rule for this project: deepen discipline, do not inflate skill count.

This skill is the session bootstrap. Domain work still lives in /omv-find, /omv-audit, /omv-repro, /omv-report, etc. You use those skills inside the process below — you do not invent parallel workflows.

Iron Laws

1. EVIDENCE BEFORE CLAIMS
2. CLI TRUTH BEFORE PROSE
3. PROCESS BEFORE IMPROVISATION
4. PASSIVE RESEARCH ONLY

Before any research claim or lifecycle transition, you must satisfy the matching gate. Rationalizing past a gate is a failure mode, not speed.

When This Applies

Invoke before substantive research action if the user is:

• looking for packages to audit, ranking targets, or running /omv-find
• auditing source → sink → guard, or running /omv-audit
• reproducing, reporting, disclosing, or asking “what next”
• about to say a finding is confirmed, report-ready, non-duplicate, or complete

If you are a subagent doing one delegated slice (e.g. only CVSS math), stay in that slice and still refuse to invent evidence.

Default Research Pipeline

Use this order unless the user already has a later-stage artifact and explicitly continues from it:

1. Orient
   omv dashboard  OR  /omv next
   If no campaign and user has a target → omv start / campaign init

2. Open the problem (开题) — prefer Attack Surface Cards when a campaign exists
   omv campaign surfaces propose <id>
   omv campaign surfaces select <id> --cards <id,id>
   omv campaign seed <id>
   (If no surfaces file, seed uses generic lanes — still candidate-only.)

3. Deepen one hypothesis at a time
   /omv-audit <id>     → fill Evidence; never invent file:line
   /omv-repro <id>     → only when observed_result is the blocker
   omv findings validate <id> after material edits

4. Gate before report language
   omv review <id> --strict
   Optional: /omv-critic <id>, /omv-dedup <id>

5. Report only when ready
   /omv-report <id> only if review says ready (or user overrides with explicit draft-only ask)
   Then provenance / archive only if user wants lifecycle bookkeeping

Announce briefly when you switch stages, e.g. “Using attack-surface cards to open the campaign” or “Running omv review --strict before any submit language.”

Hard Gates (non-negotiable)

Claim or action	Required evidence (fresh in this turn when possible)
Start multi-hypothesis audit on a target	Campaign exists; prefer surfaces propose/select before bulk seed
status: confirmed	omv findings validate <id> OK; source/sink/guard with concrete refs; submission score ≥ 75; no unresolved blockers
“Exploit works” / exploitability: proven	Local observed_result not unknown, or user-supplied observation recorded into Evidence
“Ready to submit” / submission-ready report	omv review <id> --strict → ready (or user explicitly asks for draft-only triage)
“Not a duplicate”	Dedup fields filled from real searches; if offline, say not searched — never invent CVE IDs
“Done” / “fixed research complete”	State remaining unknowns; do not imply CNA acceptance

Forbidden shortcuts

• Do not write submission-ready VulDB/GHSA/OSV prose for blocked or low-score candidate findings.
• Do not treat sink presence alone as a vulnerability.
• Do not attack live third-party services or auto-run exploit payloads.
• Do not create ThreatMap/Verification/report artifacts as fake proof during seed.
• Do not skip CLI validation by “manually eyeballing” YAML when omv is available.

Red Flags (stop and correct)

Thought	Reality
“This is obviously vulnerable”	Without source→sink→guard + version, it is a hypothesis
“I’ll confirm first and fill evidence later”	Confirm is a gate, not a vibe
“Review is optional for a draft”	Drafts must be labeled triage; never “ready to submit”
“Duplicate search will slow us down”	Missing dedup is a common CNA rejection
“One more skill will fix this”	Prefer stronger gates and better evidence; avoid skill sprawl
“The model said high confidence”	Confidence without file:line is still low for omv
“Surfaces/cards are overkill”	Cards are how we open problems; lanes alone are the thin path

Skill Priority

When multiple omv skills apply:

1. Process — this skill (using-omv), /omv next, campaign/surfaces
2. Depth — find → audit → repro
3. Gate — review / critic / dedup
4. Output — report / disclose

Do not jump to report because the user said “CVE” if Evidence is incomplete — run the gate and show the gap.

Quality Over Sprawl

Prefer:

• tighter HARD-GATEs and CLI checks
• better Attack Surface catalog and Evidence fields
• adversarial verification when stakes are high

Avoid:

• new /omv-* skills for every idea
• parallel prose workflows that bypass .omv/
• automating confirmation without observation

Minimal CLI Cheatsheet

omv dashboard
omv start --target <name> --ecosystem <eco> --vuln <classes> --no-interactive
omv campaign surfaces propose <id>
omv campaign surfaces select <id> --cards <id,id>
omv campaign seed <id>
omv findings validate <id>
omv review <id> --strict

If omv is missing: install it with npm install --global oh-my-vul, then run omv setup --platform codex in Codex or omv setup --platform claude-code in Claude Code and re-check with the matching omv doctor --platform ... command.