Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsBlogPro
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges
  • Chrome Extension
  • Skill Manager

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Pentest Scope

ASecurity

Write a penetration test scope document. Use when the user says "pentest scope", "pen test scope document", "penetration testing scope", "scope of engagement", "rules of engagement", "what to include in a pentest", "security assessment scope", "red team scope", "bug bounty scope", or needs to define the boundaries, objectives, and rules for a penetration testing engagement - even if they don't explicitly say "scope".

20 stars
0 votes
0 copies
0 views
Added 10/4/2026
ai-agentsgonodetestingapidatabasesecurity

Works with

cliapi

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 10/4/2026

$npx -y skills add qa-aman/claude-skills --skill pentest-scope --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Pentest Scope?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Pentest Scope
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/qa-aman-pentest-scope/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qa-aman-pentest-scope)

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

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: pentest-scope
description: >
  Write a penetration test scope document. Use when the user says "pentest scope",
  "pen test scope document", "penetration testing scope", "scope of engagement",
  "rules of engagement", "what to include in a pentest", "security assessment scope",
  "red team scope", "bug bounty scope", or needs to define the boundaries, objectives,
  and rules for a penetration testing engagement - even if they don't explicitly say "scope".
---

## Overview

Based on **Penetration Testing** (Georgia Weidman) and **The Hacker Playbook 3** (Peter Kim). A pentest scope document defines the contract between the organization and the tester: what systems can be tested, by what methods, during what window, and what is off-limits. Without a signed scope document, testing is unauthorized access. The scope doc protects both parties.

Weidman's rule: vague scope produces vague findings. The tighter and more specific the scope, the more actionable the results.

## Workflow

### Step 1: Write the engagement header

```
Engagement title: [company] Penetration Test - [type: web app / network / red team / etc.]
Engagement ID: [unique reference number]
Requesting organization: [company name]
Testing party: [internal team or vendor name]
Primary contact (client): [name, email, phone]
Primary contact (testing): [name, email, phone]
Legal authorization: [reference to signed authorization letter or MSA section]
Document status: [DRAFT / APPROVED / SIGNED]
```

### Step 2: Define objectives

Be specific. Generic objectives produce generic reports.

```
Primary objectives:
1. Identify exploitable vulnerabilities in [specific system or application]
2. Determine whether an external attacker can reach [specific data or system]
3. Test the effectiveness of [specific control, e.g. WAF, MFA enforcement]

Secondary objectives:
- Identify misconfigurations in [scope area]
- Assess privilege escalation paths from authenticated low-privilege user

Success criteria: [what does a successful engagement look like - e.g. achieve RCE, exfiltrate sample data, reach DB server]
```

### Step 3: Define in-scope targets

Be explicit. Everything not listed is out of scope.

**In-scope systems:**

| Target | Type | IP/URL | Notes |
|--------|------|--------|-------|
| [app.example.com] | Web application | 203.0.113.10 | Production environment |
| [api.example.com] | REST API | 203.0.113.11 | Authenticated and unauthenticated endpoints |
| [10.0.1.0/24] | Internal network segment | — | Post-initial-access lateral movement only |

**In-scope test accounts:**

| Account | Role | Credentials delivery |
|---------|------|---------------------|
| test_user@example.com | Standard user | Via encrypted email before engagement |
| test_admin@example.com | Admin user | Via encrypted email before engagement |

**In-scope techniques:**
- [ ] Reconnaissance (passive and active)
- [ ] Vulnerability scanning
- [ ] Web application testing (OWASP Top 10)
- [ ] Authentication bypass attempts
- [ ] Privilege escalation
- [ ] Lateral movement (if internal network in scope)
- [ ] Social engineering (if explicitly included)
- [ ] Physical access testing (if explicitly included)

### Step 4: Define out-of-scope targets and restrictions

```
Out-of-scope systems (do not test):
- [list production databases by name or IP]
- [list third-party systems, payment processors, auth providers]
- [list any systems not owned by the organization]
- Shared infrastructure used by other customers

Prohibited techniques:
- Denial-of-service attacks against production systems
- Destructive actions (deleting data, wiping configs)
- Social engineering of employees unless explicitly in scope
- Physical access attempts unless explicitly in scope
- Exfiltration of real customer data (use test data markers only)
- Persistence mechanisms that survive system reboot

Data handling:
- Do not retain screenshots or samples of real customer PII after engagement
- All findings must be stored encrypted at rest
- Findings shared only with named contacts listed in Step 1
```

### Step 5: Define rules of engagement

```
Testing window:
  Start: [date and time with timezone]
  End: [date and time with timezone]
  Permitted hours: [e.g. business hours only / 24x7 / weekdays only]

Source IPs (all testing traffic must originate from):
  [IP or range] - [tester name or organization]
  [IP or range] - [backup / VPN exit node]

Escalation during testing:
  If critical finding discovered: notify [name] at [phone] immediately, do not continue exploiting
  If testing causes unintended outage: stop immediately, notify [name] at [phone]
  Stop condition: any system unresponsive that was not already down at engagement start

Emergency stop contact: [name, phone - available 24/7 during engagement]
```

### Step 6: Define deliverables

```
Deliverables:
1. Executive summary (for non-technical stakeholders)
   - Risk posture overview
   - Critical findings summary
   - Prioritized remediation recommendations

2. Technical findings report
   - Each finding: severity, description, evidence, reproduction steps, remediation
   - CVSS scores for each finding
   - Risk-ranked findings table

3. Raw tool output (optional)
   - Scan logs, Burp project file, screenshots archive

Severity classification:
  Critical: immediate exploitation, significant business impact (RCE, auth bypass, data breach)
  High: exploitable with low complexity, significant data exposure
  Medium: requires specific conditions, partial data exposure
  Low: limited impact, requires chaining with other vulnerabilities
  Informational: best practice gaps, no direct exploitability

Delivery format: [PDF / encrypted ZIP / portal]
Delivery deadline: [date, N business days after engagement end]
Retest: [included / not included / priced separately]
```

## Anti-Patterns

**1. Vague scope**
Bad: "Test our web application."
Good: List exact URLs, IP addresses, test accounts, and the specific techniques permitted. Ambiguity puts the tester at legal risk and the organization at operational risk.

**2. No stop conditions**
Bad: Scope doc with no guidance on what to do if testing causes an outage.
Good: Explicit stop conditions, emergency contact available 24/7 during the window, and a clear escalation path for critical findings.

**3. No source IP restriction**
Bad: Testing can come from any IP.
Good: All testing traffic is restricted to specific source IPs listed in the engagement. This lets the client distinguish test traffic from real attacks in logs.

**4. Shared production databases in scope**
Bad: Scope includes production DB without restriction on data handling.
Good: Either exclude production DBs entirely, or explicitly restrict to test data and prohibit exfiltrating real customer records.

## Quality Checklist

- [ ] Legal authorization is referenced (signed doc or MSA clause)
- [ ] Objectives are specific with measurable success criteria
- [ ] In-scope targets listed with IPs or URLs - no ambiguity
- [ ] Test accounts specified with roles
- [ ] Out-of-scope systems explicitly listed
- [ ] Prohibited techniques explicitly listed
- [ ] Testing window with exact start/end times and timezone
- [ ] Source IPs from which all test traffic must originate are listed
- [ ] Emergency stop contact is available 24/7 during window
- [ ] Deliverables defined with severity classification and deadline
- [ ] Data handling restrictions for real customer PII documented

Attribution

qa-amanqa-aman
View sourceSee grades on GitHubMore from qa-aman →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

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 (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Ship a skill? Prove it's safe.

Free 120-pattern security scan, letter grade, and an embeddable README badge.

Submit a skill

Related Skills

Caveman

Terse caveman voice: answer first, fluff gone, every technical fact kept. Use for /caveman, "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "be brief", "less tokens". Stays on until "stop caveman" or "normal mode".

1100021 votes

Hyperplan

Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', ...

698461 votes

Writing Skills

Create and manage Claude Code skills in HASH repository following Anthropic best practices. Use when creating new skills, modifying skill-rules.json, understanding trigger patterns, working with hooks, debugging skill activation, or implementing progressive disclosure. Covers skill structure, YAML frontmatter, trigger types (keywords, intent patterns), UserPromptSubmit hook, and the 500-line rule. Includes validation and debugging with SKILL_DEBUG. Examples include rust-error-stack, cargo-dep...

3931 votes

Mcp Code Execution

Routes multi-tool workflows through MCP servers for large datasets and pipelines. Use when Bash tool overhead is limiting throughput on data-heavy tasks.

3421 votes

catchup

Recovers the conversation and failed tool calls of a previous Codex, Amp, Claude Code, Antigravity, Cline, Copilot CLI, Cursor, DeepSeek Harness, Grok Build, Kimi, OpenCode, Pi Agent, or ZCode session. Use when the user says "catch up", "what did the last session do", "get me up to speed", "I switched agents", asks to recover/summarize a previous session before continuing, or asks to diagnose or report a catchup failure. Do NOT use for the current conversation, git history, or any non-agent log.

741 votes
View all in ai-agents →