Skip to content
Back to skills

Offsec Lead

ASecurity

Orchestrator agent for iterative-deepening multi-agent coordination. Manages task trees, spawns focused teammates, evaluates findings, and deepens research until evidence supports exploitation.

  • 24 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added May 26, 2026
securitypythonshellnodetestinggitsecurity

Works with

  • mcp

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned May 27, 2026

npx -y skills add d0gesec/pownie --skill offsec-lead --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Offsec Lead?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Offsec Lead
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/d0gesec-offsec-lead/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/d0gesec-offsec-lead)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: offsec-lead
description: Orchestrator agent for iterative-deepening multi-agent coordination. Manages task trees, spawns focused teammates, evaluates findings, and deepens research until evidence supports exploitation.
user-invocable: false
---

# Orchestrator — When and How to Spawn Teammates

**Requires**: Agent Teams enabled (`CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1` in settings.json)

## Three Rules

1. **After recon, spawn teammates for each distinct attack surface** (CVE research, source analysis, auth testing — in parallel, max 3)
2. **After getting shell, spawn teammates immediately** — system enum, local software CVE research, lateral movement — do NOT enumerate serially
3. **After 3+ failures on same component, stop** — assess if the attack CLASS is dead, not just the variant

## When to Spawn

| Trigger | Action |
|---|---|
| Recon done, 2+ technologies with versions | Spawn CVE Scout per technology |
| Source code accessible (.git, file read, shell) | Spawn Code Analyst |
| Shell obtained (any user) | Spawn 2-3 teammates: system enum + CVE research + lateral paths |
| CVE found but method unclear | Spawn Validator to deepen |
| Teammate finds high-confidence vuln | Execute directly (no extra spawn needed) |

## When NOT to Spawn

- During recon (lead needs the full picture first)
- Fewer than 2 attack surfaces (serial is faster than spawn overhead)
- When stuck on same dead ends (new agents waste tokens on disproven paths)

## Teammate Prompt Template

Every teammate prompt MUST include this bootstrap block:

```
MANDATORY FIRST STEPS — do these before ANY other work:

1. Read compact-state.md for target orientation
2. Query your task assignment:
   Use mcp__neo4j__read_cypher:
   MATCH (t:task {key: '<TASK_KEY>'}) RETURN properties(t)
3. Query disproven attack classes (DO NOT waste time on these):
   MATCH (ac:attack_class)-[:ON_TARGET]->(tgt:target {name: '<TARGET>'})
   WHERE ac.status = 'disproven'
   RETURN ac.key, ac.reason, ac.blocked_techniques
4. Query findings from other teammates (avoid duplicate work):
   MATCH (t2:task {target: '<TARGET>', status: 'completed'})-[:DISCOVERED]->(finding)
   RETURN t2.role, t2.findings_summary, labels(finding)[0] AS type, finding.key

RECORDING RULES:
- Write vulnerability/attack_class nodes to Neo4j IMMEDIATELY (MERGE, never batch)
- On completion, update your task:
  MATCH (t:task {key: '<TASK_KEY>'})
  SET t.status = 'completed', t.findings_summary = '<1-2 sentences>',
      t.completed_at = datetime()
```

## CVE Scout Template

```
<bootstrap block>

YOUR ROLE: CVE Scout for <technology> <version>
ENTRY POINT: <how we reach this technology>

You MUST reach all 3 levels before marking complete:

Level 1 — FIND: Search CVEs for <technology> <= <version>
  Web search, GitHub Security Advisories, NVD, exploit-db

Level 2 — VALIDATE METHOD: For each CVE:
  - What EXACT function/code path is vulnerable?
  - What is the SPECIFIC mechanism? (not "command injection" — WHERE and HOW)
  - Is the code path reachable from our entry point?

Level 3 — CONFIRM PAYLOAD:
  - Exact payload structure
  - What WRONG approaches waste time? (document these)
  - Local test if possible (e.g., python3 -c 'os.path.join("/tmp", "/abs")')

Write to Neo4j:
  MERGE (v:vulnerability {key: '<CVE>'})
  SET v.exploitation_method = '<EXACT mechanism>',
      v.confidence = '<high|medium|low>',
      v.payload_format = '<structure>',
      v.wrong_approaches = '<what NOT to do>'
```

## Code Analyst Template

```
<bootstrap block>

YOUR ROLE: Code Analyst for <component>
SOURCE: <where to get code>

Level 1 — READ all available source
Level 2 — ANALYZE each input handler:
  XML parser? subprocess call? input validation? template rendering? file ops?
Level 3 — VERDICT per attack class:
  MERGE (ac:attack_class {key: 'class:<type>@<component>'})
  SET ac.status = 'disproven' OR 'viable',
      ac.reason = '<specific reason with file:line>',
      ac.blocked_techniques = '<what this kills>'

Also look for: hardcoded creds, internal services, version info, cron jobs
```

## Task Tracking

Create tasks when spawning, update on completion:

```cypher
// Create
MERGE (t:task {key: 'task:<role>:<subject>'})
SET t.description = '...', t.status = 'in_progress',
    t.depth = <N>, t.role = '<role>', t.target = '<target>',
    t.spawned_at = datetime()

// Complete
MATCH (t:task {key: '<key>'})
SET t.status = 'completed', t.findings_summary = '...', t.completed_at = datetime()
```

## Exploitation Threshold

Only exploit when: `confidence = 'high'` AND `exploitation_method` is specific AND `wrong_approaches` documented. If confidence is medium, spawn Validator to deepen first.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.