qe-pentest-validation

Orchestrate security finding validation through graduated exploitation. 4-phase pipeline: recon (SAST/DAST), analysis (code review), validation (exploit proof), report (No Exploit, No Report gate). Eliminates false positives by proving exploitability.

Best use case

qe-pentest-validation is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Orchestrate security finding validation through graduated exploitation. 4-phase pipeline: recon (SAST/DAST), analysis (code review), validation (exploit proof), report (No Exploit, No Report gate). Eliminates false positives by proving exploitability.

Teams using qe-pentest-validation should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.

When to use this skill

  • You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.

When not to use this skill

  • You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
  • You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.

Installation

Claude Code / Cursor / Codex

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/qe-pentest-validation/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/main/.kiro/skills/qe-pentest-validation/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/qe-pentest-validation/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How qe-pentest-validation Compares

Feature / Agentqe-pentest-validationStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Orchestrate security finding validation through graduated exploitation. 4-phase pipeline: recon (SAST/DAST), analysis (code review), validation (exploit proof), report (No Exploit, No Report gate). Eliminates false positives by proving exploitability.

Where can I find the source code?

You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.

Related Guides

SKILL.md Source

# Pentest Validation

<default_to_action>
When validating security findings:
1. REQUIRE explicit authorization for target URL
2. SCAN with qe-security-scanner (SAST + dependency + secrets)
3. ANALYZE with qe-security-reviewer + qe-security-auditor (parallel)
4. VALIDATE with qe-pentest-validator (graduated exploitation, parallel per vuln type)
5. REPORT only confirmed findings with PoC evidence ("No Exploit, No Report")
6. UPDATE exploit playbook with new patterns

**Quality Gates:**
- Authorization confirmed before ANY exploitation
- Target URL is staging/dev (NOT production)
- Budget cap enforced ($15 default)
- Time cap enforced (30 min default)
- All exploitation attempts logged
</default_to_action>

## Quick Reference Card

### The 4-Phase Pipeline

| Phase | Agent(s) | Purpose | Parallelism |
|-------|----------|---------|-------------|
| **1. Recon** | qe-security-scanner | SAST, DAST, dependency scan, secrets | Internal parallel |
| **2. Analysis** | qe-security-reviewer + qe-security-auditor | Code review + compliance check | Both in parallel |
| **3. Validation** | qe-pentest-validator | Graduated exploit validation | Per-vuln-type parallel |
| **4. Report** | qe-quality-gate | "No Exploit, No Report" filter | Sequential |

### Graduated Exploitation Tiers

| Tier | Handler | Cost | Latency | Use When |
|------|---------|------|---------|----------|
| **1** | Agent Booster (WASM) | $0 | <1ms | Code pattern is conclusive (eval, innerHTML, hardcoded creds) |
| **2** | Haiku | $0.0002 | ~500ms | Need payload test against live target |
| **3** | Sonnet/Opus | $0.003-$0.015 | 2-5s | Full exploit chain with data proof |

### When to Use This Skill

| Scenario | Tier | Estimated Cost |
|----------|------|----------------|
| PR security review (source only) | 1 | $0 |
| Pre-release validation (staging) | 1-2 | $1-5 |
| Full pentest validation | 1-3 | $5-15 |
| Compliance audit evidence | 1-3 | $5-15 |

---

## Configuration

```yaml
pentest:
  target_url: https://staging.app.com    # REQUIRED for Tier 2-3
  source_repo: ./src                      # REQUIRED for Tier 1+
  exploitation_tier: 2                    # 1=pattern-only, 2=payload-test, 3=full-exploit
  vuln_types:                             # Which pipelines to run
    - injection                           # SQL, NoSQL, command injection
    - xss                                 # Reflected, stored, DOM XSS
    - auth                                # Auth bypass, session, JWT
    - ssrf                                # URL scheme abuse, metadata
  max_cost_usd: 15                        # Budget cap per run
  timeout_minutes: 30                     # Time cap per run
  require_authorization: true             # MUST confirm target ownership
  no_production: true                     # Block production URLs
  production_patterns:                    # URL patterns to block
    - "*.prod.*"
    - "api.*"
    - "www.*"
```

---

## Safeguards (Mandatory)

### Authorization Gate
Every pentest validation run MUST:
1. Display target URL and exploitation tier to user
2. Require explicit confirmation: "I own/authorized testing of this target"
3. Log authorization with timestamp
4. Block if target URL matches production patterns

### What This Skill Does NOT Do
- Full autonomous reconnaissance (Nmap, Subfinder)
- Zero-day exploit development
- Attack targets without explicit authorization
- Test production systems
- Store actual exfiltrated data (only proof of access)
- Social engineering or phishing simulation
- Port scanning or service discovery

---

## Validation Pipelines

### Injection Pipeline
| Attack | Tier 1 (Pattern) | Tier 2 (Payload) | Tier 3 (Full) |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------|----------------|
| SQL injection | String concat in query | `' OR '1'='1` response diff | UNION SELECT data extraction |
| NoSQL injection | `$where`, `$gt` in query | Operator injection test | Collection enumeration |
| Command injection | `exec()`, `system()` calls | Command delimiter test | Reverse shell proof |
| LDAP injection | String concat in filter | Wildcard injection | Directory enumeration |

### XSS Pipeline
| Attack | Tier 1 (Pattern) | Tier 2 (Payload) | Tier 3 (Full) |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------|----------------|
| Reflected XSS | No output encoding | `<img onerror>` reflection | Browser JS execution via Playwright |
| Stored XSS | `innerHTML` assignment | Payload stored + retrieved | Cookie theft PoC |
| DOM XSS | `document.write(location)` | Fragment injection | DOM manipulation proof |

### Auth Pipeline
| Attack | Tier 1 (Pattern) | Tier 2 (Payload) | Tier 3 (Full) |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------|----------------|
| JWT none | No algorithm validation | Modified JWT accepted | Admin access with forged token |
| Session fixation | No session rotation | Pre-set session reused | Cross-user session hijack |
| Credential stuffing | No rate limiting | 100 attempts unblocked | Valid credential discovery |
| IDOR | No authorization check | Access other user data | Full CRUD on foreign resources |

### SSRF Pipeline
| Attack | Tier 1 (Pattern) | Tier 2 (Payload) | Tier 3 (Full) |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------|----------------|
| Internal URL | User-controlled URL fetch | `http://169.254.169.254` | Cloud metadata extraction |
| DNS rebinding | URL validation bypass | Rebind to internal IP | Internal service access |
| Protocol smuggling | URL scheme not restricted | `file:///etc/passwd` | File content in response |

---

## Agent Coordination

### Orchestration Pattern
```typescript
// Phase 1: Recon (parallel scans)
await Task("Security Scan", {
  target: "./src",
  layers: { sast: true, dast: true, dependencies: true, secrets: true }
}, "qe-security-scanner");

// Phase 2: Analysis (parallel review)
await Promise.all([
  Task("Code Security Review", {
    findings: phase1Results,
    depth: "comprehensive"
  }, "qe-security-reviewer"),

  Task("Compliance Audit", {
    findings: phase1Results,
    frameworks: ["owasp-top-10"]
  }, "qe-security-auditor")
]);

// Phase 3: Validation (graduated exploitation)
await Task("Exploit Validation", {
  findings: [...phase1Results, ...phase2Results],
  target_url: "https://staging.app.com",
  exploitation_tier: 2,
  vuln_types: ["injection", "xss", "auth", "ssrf"],
  max_cost_usd: 15,
  timeout_minutes: 30
}, "qe-pentest-validator");

// Phase 4: Report ("No Exploit, No Report" gate)
await Task("Security Quality Gate", {
  findings: phase3Results.confirmedFindings,
  gate: "no-exploit-no-report",
  require_poc: true
}, "qe-quality-gate");
```

### Finding Classification
| Status | Meaning | Action |
|--------|---------|--------|
| `confirmed-exploitable` | Exploitation succeeded with PoC | Report with evidence |
| `likely-exploitable` | Partial exploitation, defenses detected | Report with caveats |
| `not-exploitable` | All exploitation attempts failed | Filter from report |
| `inconclusive` | WAF/defense blocked, unclear if vulnerable | Report for manual review |

---

## Exploit Playbook Memory

### Namespace Structure
```
aqe/pentest/
 playbook/
  exploit/{vuln_type}/{tech_stack}/{technique}
  bypass/{defense_type}/{technique}
  payload/{vuln_type}/{variant}
 results/
  validation-{timestamp}
 poc/
  {finding_id}-poc
```

### Learning Loop
1. **Before validation**: Query playbook for known patterns matching findings
2. **During validation**: Try known payloads first (higher success rate)
3. **After validation**: Store new successful patterns with confidence scores
4. **Over time**: Agent converges on most effective payloads per tech stack

---

## Cost Optimization

### Estimated Cost by Scenario
| Scenario | Tier Mix | Findings | Est. Cost | Est. Time |
|----------|----------|----------|-----------|-----------|
| PR check (source only) | 100% Tier 1 | 5 | $0 | <5s |
| Sprint validation | 70% T1, 30% T2 | 15 | $2-5 | 5-10 min |
| Release validation | 40% T1, 40% T2, 20% T3 | 25 | $8-15 | 15-30 min |
| Full pentest | 20% T1, 30% T2, 50% T3 | 40 | $15-30 | 30-60 min |

### Cost vs Shannon Comparison
| Metric | Shannon | AQE Pentest Validation |
|--------|---------|----------------------|
| Cost per run | ~$50 | $5-15 (graduated tiers) |
| Runtime | 60-90 min | 15-30 min (parallel pipelines) |
| False positive rate | Low (exploit-proven) | Low (same principle) |
| Learning | None (static prompts) | ReasoningBank playbook |

---

## Success Metrics

| Metric | Target | Measurement |
|--------|--------|-------------|
| False positive reduction | >60% of findings eliminated | Pre/post validator comparison |
| Exploit confirmation rate | >80% of confirmed findings truly exploitable | Manual PoC verification |
| Cost per run | <$15 USD | Token tracking per pipeline |
| Time per run | <30 minutes | Execution time metrics |
| Playbook growth | 100+ patterns after 6 months | Memory namespace count |

---

## Related Skills

- [security-testing](../security-testing/) - OWASP vulnerability scanning
- [qe-security-compliance](../qe-security-compliance/) - SAST/DAST automation
- [compliance-testing](../compliance-testing/) - Regulatory compliance
- [api-testing-patterns](../api-testing-patterns/) - API security testing
- [chaos-engineering-resilience](../chaos-engineering-resilience/) - Security under chaos

---

## Remember

**"No Exploit, No Report."** A vulnerability scanner that can't prove exploitation delivers uncertain value. This skill transforms security findings from theoretical risks into proven vulnerabilities with evidence. Every confirmed finding comes with a reproducible proof-of-concept. Every false positive is eliminated before it reaches the report.

**Think proof, not prediction.** Don't report what MIGHT be vulnerable. Prove what IS vulnerable.

Related Skills

validation-pipeline

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Runs multi-stage validation gates with per-step scoring, pass/fail verdicts, and aggregate quality reports. Use when validating requirements, code, or artifacts through structured gate enforcement before merge or release.

qe-requirements-validation

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Validates acceptance criteria for testability, traces requirements to test cases, and generates BDD scenarios from user stories. Use when validating acceptance criteria, building requirements traceability matrices, managing Gherkin scenarios, or ensuring complete requirements coverage before development.

pentest-validation

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Use when validating security findings from SAST/DAST scans, proving exploitability of reported vulnerabilities, eliminating false positives, or running the 4-phase pentest pipeline (recon, analysis, validation, report).

qe-visual-testing-advanced

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Advanced visual regression testing with pixel-perfect comparison, AI-powered diff analysis, responsive design validation, and cross-browser visual consistency. Use when detecting UI regressions, validating designs, or ensuring visual consistency.

qe-verification-quality

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.

qe-testability-scoring

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

AI-powered testability assessment using 10 principles of intrinsic testability with Playwright and optional Vibium integration. Evaluates web applications against Observability, Controllability, Algorithmic Simplicity, Transparency, Stability, Explainability, Unbugginess, Smallness, Decomposability, and Similarity. Use when assessing software testability, evaluating test readiness, identifying testability improvements, or generating testability reports.

qe-test-reporting-analytics

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Advanced test reporting, quality dashboards, predictive analytics, trend analysis, and executive reporting for QE metrics. Use when communicating quality status, tracking trends, or making data-driven decisions.

qe-test-idea-rewriting

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Transform passive 'Verify X' test descriptions into active, observable test actions. Use when test ideas lack specificity, use vague language, or fail quality validation. Converts to action-verb format for clearer, more testable descriptions.

qe-test-environment-management

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Test environment provisioning, infrastructure as code for testing, Docker/Kubernetes for test environments, service virtualization, and cost optimization. Use when managing test infrastructure, ensuring environment parity, or optimizing testing costs.

qe-test-design-techniques

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Systematic test design with boundary value analysis, equivalence partitioning, decision tables, state transition testing, and combinatorial testing. Use when designing comprehensive test cases, reducing redundant tests, or ensuring systematic coverage.

qe-test-data-management

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Strategic test data generation, management, and privacy compliance. Use when creating test data, handling PII, ensuring GDPR/CCPA compliance, or scaling data generation for realistic testing scenarios.

qe-test-automation-strategy

298
from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe

Design and implement effective test automation with proper pyramid, patterns, and CI/CD integration. Use when building automation frameworks or improving test efficiency.