Proof-driven exploitation with 4-level evidence system, bypass exhaustion protocol, mandatory evidence checklists, and strict EXPLOITED/POTENTIAL/FALSE_POSITIVE classification.
Scanned 5/29/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add plurigrid/asi --skill pentest-exploit-validation --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Pentest Exploit Validation?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/plurigrid-pentest-exploit-validation)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: pentest-exploit-validation
description: Proof-driven exploitation with 4-level evidence system, bypass exhaustion protocol, mandatory evidence checklists, and strict EXPLOITED/POTENTIAL/FALSE_POSITIVE classification.
---
# Pentest Exploit Validation
## Purpose
Validate vulnerability findings through proof-driven exploitation using Shannon's 4-level evidence system. Consumes the exploitation queue from white-box code review, attempts structured exploitation with bypass exhaustion, collects mandatory evidence per vulnerability type, and classifies each finding as EXPLOITED, POTENTIAL, or FALSE_POSITIVE.
## Prerequisites
### Authorization Requirements
- **Written authorization** with explicit scope for active exploitation testing
- **Exploitation queue JSON** from pentest-whitebox-code-review output
- **Test accounts** at multiple privilege levels for authz testing
- **Data exfiltration approval** — confirm acceptable proof-of-concept scope
- **Rollback plan** for any data-mutating exploits
### Environment Setup
- sqlmap for automated SQL injection exploitation
- Burp Suite Professional with Repeater, Intruder, and Turbo Intruder
- curl for manual HTTP request crafting
- Playwright for browser-based exploitation (XSS, CSRF)
- nuclei with custom templates for automated validation
- Isolated testing environment or explicit production testing approval
## Core Workflow
1. **Queue Intake**: Parse exploitation queue JSON, validate schema, prioritize by confidence score and impact severity. Group findings by vulnerability type for parallel exploitation.
2. **Injection Exploitation**: Confirm injectable parameter → fingerprint backend (DB type, OS) → enumerate databases/tables → demonstrate data exfiltration with minimal footprint.
3. **XSS Exploitation**: Graph traversal from source → processing → sanitization → sink. Craft context-appropriate payload, demonstrate session hijack or DOM manipulation.
4. **Auth Exploitation**: Attack authentication weaknesses → demonstrate account takeover via credential stuffing, token forgery, or session hijack.
5. **Authz Exploitation**: Horizontal access (cross-user data) → vertical escalation (admin functions) → workflow bypass (state manipulation).
6. **SSRF Exploitation**: Internal service access → cloud metadata retrieval (169.254.169.254) → internal network reconnaissance.
7. **Bypass Exhaustion**: For each finding, attempt 3 initial payloads → if blocked, escalate to 8-10 bypass variations → if still blocked, deploy automated tool variants.
8. **Impact Escalation**: Escalate from proof-of-concept to real impact demonstration — data exfiltration, session hijacking, or remote code execution.
9. **Evidence Collection**: Collect mandatory evidence per vulnerability type using per-type checklists.
10. **Classification**: Assign final classification — EXPLOITED, POTENTIAL, or FALSE_POSITIVE — based on 4-level proof system.
## 4-Level Proof System
| Level | Description | Classification |
|-------|-------------|---------------|
| L1 | Weakness identified in code but not confirmed exploitable | POTENTIAL |
| L2 | Partial bypass achieved but full exploitation not demonstrated | POTENTIAL |
| L3 | Vulnerability confirmed with reproducible evidence | EXPLOITED |
| L4 | Critical impact demonstrated (data exfil, RCE, account takeover) | EXPLOITED CRITICAL |
## Classification Criteria
| Classification | Criteria |
|---------------|----------|
| EXPLOITED | Reproducible proof with evidence: HTTP request/response, extracted data, or demonstrated impact |
| POTENTIAL | Code-level weakness confirmed but exploitation blocked by defense-in-depth or environment constraints |
| FALSE_POSITIVE | Taint analysis flagged but manual review confirms effective sanitization or unreachable code path |
## Tool Categories
| Category | Tools | Purpose |
|----------|-------|---------|
| SQL Injection | sqlmap, manual payloads | Automated and manual SQLi exploitation |
| Request Crafting | Burp Repeater, curl | Manual HTTP request manipulation |
| Fuzzing | Burp Intruder, Turbo Intruder | Payload variation and bypass testing |
| Browser Exploitation | Playwright | XSS demonstration, session hijack |
| Automation | nuclei, custom scripts | Template-based vulnerability validation |
| Evidence Capture | Burp Logger, screenshot tools | Request/response logging and proof |
## References
- `references/tools.md` - Tool function signatures and parameters
- `references/workflows.md` - Exploitation workflows, evidence checklists, and classification tree
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!