Write custom Semgrep rules to identify organization-specific logic flaws, improper cryptography usage, or missing authorization checks during source code review. This skill focuses on moving beyond default rulesets to locate complex vulnerabilities.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add ShulkwiSEC/bb-huge --skill semgrep-custom-rule-writing --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Semgrep Custom Rule Writing?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/shulkwisec-semgrep-custom-rule-writing)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: semgrep-custom-rule-writing
description: >
Write custom Semgrep rules to identify organization-specific logic flaws, improper
cryptography usage, or missing authorization checks during source code review.
This skill focuses on moving beyond default rulesets to locate complex vulnerabilities.
domain: cybersecurity
subdomain: bug-hunting
category: Source Code Analysis
difficulty: intermediate
estimated_time: "2-4 hours"
mitre_attack:
tactics: [TA0001, TA0007]
techniques: [T1190]
platforms: [code]
tags: [semgrep, sast, source-code-review, static-analysis, custom-rules, bug-hunting]
tools: [semgrep, code-editor]
version: "1.0"
author: CyberSkills-Elite
license: Apache-2.0
---
# Semgrep Custom Rule Writing
## When to Use
- During a white-box penetration test or source code review when looking for bespoke vulnerabilities that generic SAST tools fail to detect.
- To codify and hunt for organization-specific anti-patterns (e.g., calling an internal API without passing the authentication context).
## Prerequisites
- Authorized scope and target URLs from bug bounty program
- Burp Suite Professional (or Community) configured with browser proxy
- Familiarity with OWASP Top 10 and common web vulnerability classes
- SecLists wordlists for fuzzing and enumeration
## Workflow
### Phase 1: Understanding Semgrep Patterns
```yaml
# Concept: Semgrep syntax rules:
- id: simple-eval-detection
pattern: eval(...)
message: "Avoid using eval() as it can lead to code injection."
languages: [javascript, python]
severity: ERROR
```
### Phase 2: Utilizing Metavariables
```yaml
# rules:
- id: python-exec-with-variable
pattern: exec($X)
message: "Using exec() on variable $X is dangerous."
languages: [python]
severity: WARNING
```
### Phase 3: Pattern-Inside and Pattern-Not (Contextual Matching)
```yaml
# rules:
- id: missing-auth-check-flask
patterns:
- pattern-inside: |
@app.route(...)
def $FUNC(...):
...
- pattern: return $RENDER(...)
- pattern-not-inside: |
@login_required
def $FUNC(...):
...
- pattern-not-inside: |
if current_user.is_authenticated:
...
message: "Flask route missing @login_required or explicit authentication check."
languages: [python]
severity: ERROR
```
### Phase 4: Testing Rules via Semgrep CLI
```bash
# # semgrep --config custom-rules.yml src/
```
#### Decision Point 🔀
```mermaid
flowchart TD
A[Identify Pattern ] --> B{Write Rule ]}
B -->|Yes| C[Test Rule ]
B -->|No| D[Refine Scope ]
C --> E[Execute Scan ]
```
## 🔵 Blue Team Detection & Defense
- **CI/CD Integration Pipeline Validation**: **Centralized Rule Repositories**: **Developer Education**: Key Concepts
| Concept | Description |
|---------|-------------|
## Output Format
```
Semgrep Custom Rule Writing — Assessment Report
============================================================
Target: [Target identifier]
Assessor: [Operator name]
Date: [Assessment date]
Scope: [Authorized scope]
MITRE ATT&CK: [Relevant technique IDs]
Findings Summary:
[Finding 1]: [Severity] — [Brief description]
[Finding 2]: [Severity] — [Brief description]
Detailed Results:
Phase 1: [Phase name]
- Result: [Outcome]
- Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
- Impact: [Business impact assessment]
Phase 2: [Phase name]
- Result: [Outcome]
- Evidence: [Screenshot/log reference]
- Impact: [Business impact assessment]
Risk Rating: [Critical/High/Medium/Low/Informational]
Recommendations:
1. [Immediate remediation step]
2. [Long-term hardening measure]
3. [Monitoring/detection improvement]
```
## 💰 Industry Bounty Payout Statistics (2024-2025)
| Company/Platform | Total Paid | Highest Single | Year |
|-----------------|------------|---------------|------|
| **Google VRP** | $17.1M | $250,000 (CVE-2025-4609 Chrome sandbox escape) | 2025 |
| **Microsoft** | $16.6M | (Not disclosed) | 2024 |
| **Google VRP** | $11.8M | $100,115 (Chrome MiraclePtr Bypass) | 2024 |
| **HackerOne (all programs)** | $81M | $100,050 (crypto firm) | 2025 |
| **Meta/Facebook** | $2.3M | up to $300K (mobile code execution) | 2024 |
| **Crypto.com (HackerOne)** | $2M program | $2M max | 2024 |
| **1Password (Bugcrowd)** | $1M max | $1M (highest Bugcrowd ever) | 2024 |
| **Samsung** | $1M max | $1M (critical mobile flaws) | 2025 |
**Key Takeaway**: Google alone paid $17.1M in 2025 — a 40% increase YoY. Microsoft paid $16.6M.
The industry is paying more, not less. Average critical bounty on HackerOne: $3,700 (2023).
## 📚 Shared Resources
> For cross-cutting methodology applicable to all vulnerability classes, see:
> - [`_shared/references/elite-chaining-strategy.md`](../_shared/references/elite-chaining-strategy.md) — Exploit chaining methodology and high-payout chain patterns
> - [`_shared/references/elite-report-writing.md`](../_shared/references/elite-report-writing.md) — HackerOne-optimized report writing, CWE quick reference
> - [`_shared/references/real-world-bounties.md`](../_shared/references/real-world-bounties.md) — Verified disclosed bounties by vulnerability class
## References
- Semgrep: [Writing Rules Documentation](https://semgrep.dev/docs/writing-rules/rule-syntax/)
- GitHub Security Lab: [Using Semgrep to find vulnerabilities](https://securitylab.github.com/research/semgrep-rule-writing/)
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!