ai-pair-hunting-with-claude

name	ai-pair-hunting-with-claude
description	Configure Claude as a "Pair Hunter" — autonomous overnight hacking, context management via per-target .claudemd files, sub-agent compaction avoidance, and scope enforcement. Based on Critical Thinking Bug Bounty Podcast Episode 166.
domain	cybersecurity
subdomain	bug-hunting
category	Methodology
difficulty	intermediate
estimated_time	1-3 hours
platforms	["linux","macos","windows"]
tags	["claude-code","autonomous-hacking","pair-hunting","context-management","compaction","overnight-hacking","scope-enforcement"]
tools	["claude-code-cli"]
version	1.0
author	CyberSkills-Elite
license	Apache-2.0
source	Critical Thinking Bug Bounty Podcast Ep. 166
source_url	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTX9u-EsjmM

AI Pair Hunting with Claude

When to Use

• When setting up Claude Code CLI to autonomously test a bug bounty target.
• When running overnight / multi-hour autonomous hacking sessions.
• When managing scope and context across multiple bug bounty programs.
• When Claude is getting stuck in compaction loops or losing context mid-session.
• When you need Claude to stay strictly within program scope.

Prerequisites

• Claude Code CLI installed and authenticated
• A defined bug bounty target with program policy
• Separate workspace directory per target program
• Understanding of Claude's context window limitations

Core Concept: Claude as a Pair Hunter

"AI is not your replacement. It is your Pair Hunter — it brings determinism (accuracy) and speed." — Critical Thinking Podcast, Ep. 166

Claude excels at:

• Deterministic tasks: Testing every parameter in a 200-param API
• Speed: Fuzzing/enumerating faster than manual testing
• Pattern recognition: Spotting anomalies in large response sets
• Documentation: Auto-generating reports from findings

Claude struggles with:

• Creative intuition: "This feels wrong" — that is YOUR job
• Out-of-scope judgment: Without explicit policy, Claude will test everything
• Long context retention: After ~100k tokens, context degrades

Workflow

Phase 1: Per-Target Context Management

"For every target, create a separate folder. Put a .claudemd file in it with the program's policy and scope." — Episode 166 [51:20]

Directory structure:

programs/
├── example-corp/
│   ├── .claudemd           # ← THIS IS THE KEY FILE
│   ├── notes/
│   ├── leads/
│   ├── findings/
│   └── scripts/
├── another-target/
│   ├── .claudemd
│   └── ...

.claudemd template:

# Target: Example Corp Bug Bounty Program

## Program URL
https://hackerone.com/example-corp

## Scope — IN
- *.example.com
- api.example.com
- app.example.com (authenticated testing allowed)
- mobile-api.example.com

## Scope — OUT (DO NOT TEST)
- blog.example.com (third-party WordPress)
- status.example.com (StatusPage hosted)
- *.example.dev (staging — explicitly excluded)
- Any domain not listed above

## Rules of Engagement
- NO denial of service testing
- NO social engineering of employees
- NO accessing other users' data beyond proof of concept (read 1 record, stop)
- Rate limit: Max 10 requests/second
- Report vulnerabilities within 24 hours of confirmation

## Authentication
- Test account 1: [e-mail] / [use env var AUTH_TOKEN_1]
- Test account 2: [e-mail] / [use env var AUTH_TOKEN_2]
- API Key: [use env var EXAMPLE_CORP_API_KEY]

## Tech Stack (Known)
- Frontend: React 18 + Next.js
- Backend: Node.js + Express
- Database: PostgreSQL (inferred from error messages)
- CDN: Cloudflare
- Auth: OAuth 2.0 + JWT

## Priority Targets
1. `/api/v2/users/*` — IDOR testing
2. `/api/v2/billing/*` — Payment logic flaws
3. `/upload/*` — File upload vulnerabilities
4. `/auth/*` — Authentication bypass

## Previous Findings (to avoid duplicates)
- XSS in /search — reported 2024-12, resolved
- IDOR in /api/v1/users/{id} — reported 2025-01, resolved (v2 untested)

Why this works: When you run claude from inside programs/example-corp/, Claude automatically reads .claudemd and constrains itself to the defined scope.

Phase 2: Autonomous Overnight Hacking

"I am going to bed. Don't ask for input. Keep hacking." — Episode 166 [40:01]

The overnight prompt:

I am going to sleep. Do not ask me for input or confirmation.

Your mission for the next 4 hours:
1. Read the .claudemd file for scope and rules.
2. Map all API endpoints on api.example.com using the scripts in scripts/.
3. For each endpoint, test the following:
   - IDOR: Replace user IDs / resource IDs with other values.
   - Broken auth: Access endpoints without auth token, with expired token, with wrong role.
   - Input validation: Fuzz all parameters with payloads from scripts/fuzz-payloads.ts.
4. Log ALL findings to findings/ using the finding template.
5. Log all interesting observations to notes/.
6. Do NOT exceed 10 requests per second.
7. Do NOT test anything outside the scope defined in .claudemd.

When you finish, write a summary to overnight-report-[date].md with:
- Endpoints tested (count)
- Findings discovered (count + severity)
- Areas that need manual follow-up
- Errors encountered

Key considerations for overnight sessions:

Factor	Guidance
Token usage	The session may cost $5-20+ in API tokens for 4 hours
Rate limits	Enforce in your scripts, not just in the prompt
Scope violations	The .claudemd scope section is critical safety net
False positives	Expect ~30-50% of "interesting" results to be false positives — triage in morning
Tool permissions	Pre-approve network access and file write permissions before sleeping

Phase 3: Compaction Avoidance

"If you use too many sub-agents (4+), Claude gets stuck in a compacting loop. Keep it to 2-3 sub-agents max." — Episode 166 [41:11]

What is compaction? When Claude's context window fills up, it "compacts" by summarizing older conversation turns. If too many sub-agents are running, the compaction process itself fills the context, creating a death spiral.

Rules:

❌ BAD: Spawning 5+ parallel sub-agents
   "Run these 5 separate tasks simultaneously..."
   Result: Context fills → compaction loops → Claude freezes

✅ GOOD: Sequential tasks with 2-3 sub-agents max
   "First enumerate endpoints, then test the top 10 for IDOR"
   Result: Clean context, focused execution

✅ GOOD: Use scripts instead of sub-agents for parallel work
   "Run scripts/parallel-fuzz.ts which handles 50 endpoints internally"
   Result: Claude manages 1 task; the script handles parallelism

Compaction warning signs:

• Claude starts repeating itself
• Responses become shorter and lose detail
• Claude "forgets" earlier findings in the same session
• Session time between responses increases dramatically

Mitigation strategies:

1. Break long sessions into phases: Run 1-hour focused sessions instead of 4-hour marathons
2. Offload parallelism to scripts: TypeScript scripts handle concurrency, Claude orchestrates
3. Use the funnel: Write findings to disk immediately (see bug-bounty-workflow-funnel skill) so data survives compaction
4. Start fresh sessions: If compaction is occurring, start a new Claude session with a summary of progress

Phase 4: Effective Prompting Patterns

Directive prompts (high autonomy):

Test all endpoints in api.example.com/v2/ for IDOR vulnerabilities. 
Use the authenticated tokens from .claudemd. Log findings to findings/.
Do not stop until all endpoints are tested.

Constraint prompts (safety rails):

You are ONLY allowed to test the following 3 endpoints:
- GET /api/v2/users/{id}
- POST /api/v2/users/{id}/update
- DELETE /api/v2/users/{id}

Do NOT test any other endpoint. Do NOT make more than 100 total requests.
After each test, write the result to notes/idor-test-results.md.

Chain prompts (multi-step):

Phase 1: Enumerate all JavaScript files on app.example.com. Extract API endpoints, 
         secrets, and interesting variables. Save to notes/js-analysis.md.

Phase 2: For each API endpoint found in Phase 1, test for:
         - Missing authentication
         - IDOR via ID manipulation  
         - SQL injection via single-quote test
         Save results to leads/.

Phase 3: For any confirmed vulnerability from Phase 2, create a full finding 
         document in findings/ with PoC.

Phase 5: Security & Permissions

"We use dangerouslySkipPermissions — but Claude has NO access to 1Password or personal email." — Episode 166

When running autonomous sessions, the --dangerously-skip-permissions flag prevents Claude from asking for confirmation on every file write and network request. However, you MUST harden the environment:

✅ Allow	❌ Block
Network access to in-scope targets only	Password managers (1Password, Bitwarden)
Write to findings/notes/leads directories	Personal email clients
Execute scripts in the target workspace	SSH keys to production systems
Read source code directories	Cloud provider admin CLIs

Best practice: Run Claude in a sandboxed VPS user account with restricted network access (firewall to scope IPs only). See the remote-hunting-workflow skill for full VPS setup, Discord bot, and tmux multi-target configurations.

Decision Point 🔀

flowchart TD
    A[Starting a new target] --> B[Create target directory]
    B --> C[Write .claudemd with scope + policy]
    C --> D{How long will you hunt?}
    D -->|"< 1 hour"| E[Interactive session with constraint prompts]
    D -->|"1-4 hours"| F[Focused directive prompt, 2-3 sub-agents max]
    D -->|"Overnight"| G[Overnight prompt with full autonomy]
    E --> H{Claude losing context?}
    F --> H
    G --> H
    H -->|Yes| I[Start new session with progress summary]
    H -->|No| J[Continue hunting]
    J --> K{Findings discovered?}
    K -->|Yes| L[Promote through Funnel stages]
    K -->|No| M[Expand test surface or switch targets]

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Consequence	Fix
No .claudemd file	Claude tests out-of-scope targets → policy violation → ban	Always create scope file first
5+ sub-agents at once	Compaction death spiral, lost context	Max 2-3 sub-agents; offload to scripts
No rate limiting	Target's WAF blocks you; program bans your account	Enforce in scripts + prompt
Hardcoded auth tokens	Tokens leaked if skill/prompt is shared	Use environment variables
No disk persistence	Findings lost when context compacts	Write to files immediately
Vague overnight prompt	Claude wanders, tests irrelevant things	Specific objectives + strict scope

Output Format

Pair Hunting Session Report
===========================
Target: example-corp
Duration: 3h 45m
Mode: Overnight autonomous

Endpoints Tested: 47
Requests Made: 1,842

Findings:
  - [HIGH] IDOR in GET /api/v2/users/{id} — any user profile accessible
  - [MEDIUM] Missing rate limit on POST /api/v2/auth/login — brute force possible
  - [LOW] Verbose error messages on /api/v2/billing/charge with invalid card

Leads Requiring Manual Follow-up: 5
Notes Generated: 12 files

Context Health: ✅ No compaction issues
Scope Violations: ❌ None

Creativity Directive

IMPORTANT: The instructions above are a STARTING POINT, not a boundary. You are expected to go beyond these steps:

• Develop your own prompting patterns for specific vulnerability classes.
• Create meta-skills that orchestrate other skills in sequence.
• Build monitoring scripts that alert you when Claude finds something critical overnight.
• Experiment with different context management strategies.

Think like an attacker. Adapt. Improvise.

🔵 Blue Team

• Deploy robust WAF rules to detect anomalies.
• Monitor logs for unusual access patterns.

📚 Shared Resources

For cross-cutting methodology applicable to all vulnerability classes, see:

• _shared/references/elite-chaining-strategy.md — Exploit chaining methodology and high-payout chain patterns
• _shared/references/elite-report-writing.md — HackerOne-optimized report writing, CWE quick reference
• _shared/references/real-world-bounties.md — Verified disclosed bounties by vulnerability class

References

• Source Video: Building Claude Skills as a Bug Bounty Hunter — Critical Thinking Ep. 166 [40:01, 41:11, 51:20]
• Claude Code CLI Docs: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code
• HackerOne Program Policies: https://docs.hackerone.com/