SurfaceSAFE
Bug bounty agent framework for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot, and OpenClaw — 48 agents, 26 commands, 19 CLI tools, 2 MCP servers, autonomous hunt loops, exploit chain builder.
Overview
Bug bounty agent framework for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot, and OpenClaw — 48 agents, 26 commands, 19 CLI tools, 2 MCP servers, autonomous hunt loops, exploit chain builder.
be1723764604OBSERVED · 2026-10-13What it tells the agent
The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.
--- name: surface description: "Show ranked attack surface for a target. Invokes recon-ranker agent. Usage: /surface target.com" disable-model-invocation: false --- Rank attack surface for: $ARGUMENTS 1. Verify recon data exists in recon/ directory. If not, suggest /recon first. 2. Read brain data for this target. 3. Launch `recon-ranker` agent: "Rank the attack surface for $ARGUMENTS. Read recon/ for discovery data and brain for tested endpoints. Output P1/P2/Kill ranking." 4. Show the ranking to the user. 5. Suggest: `/hunt $ARGUMENTS` to start testing P1 targets. ## Top-Tier Surface Ranking Rank by exploit economics. P1 requires at least two of: - crown-jewel function: auth, billing, admin, tenant data, integrations, uploads, exports, webhooks, AI/tool execution - weak boundary: cross-tenant IDs, mixed roles, public/private transition, OAuth callback, parser boundary, file ingestion - novelty: new asset, changed JS, low hacktivity coverage, unusual vendor or beta endpoint - proof path: two-account test, clear callback, readable response, browser-verifiable sink, local PoC Kill or P3 assets that are static marketing pages, hardened vendor panels with no program-owned data, or endpoints already exhausted with strong evidence. Every P1 must include the best first vuln class and first request to try.
Trust audit
SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.
| Layer | What it checks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Provenance & inventory | PASS |
| L1 | Static analysis of the code | NA |
| L2 | Instruction surface (what it tells the agent) | PASS |
| L3 | Class-specific surface | PASS |
| L4 | Behavioural (sandbox) | SKIPPED |
What the source does
- Filesystem
- none-observed
- Network
- none-observed
- Shell
- none-observed
- Dependencies
- pinned
- Secrets in source
- none-found
Findings (1)
Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass, no_license.
be1723764604full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/h-mmer__surface.json · Report an issue / request a re-scanAudit history
Every audit this skill has had.
| Date | Source | Verdict | Grade | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-13 | be1723764604 | SAFE | B | 89 | first audit |
Questions
What does the Surface skill do?
Bug bounty agent framework for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot, and OpenClaw — 48 agents, 26 commands, 19 CLI tools, 2 MCP servers, autonomous hunt loops, exploit chain builder.
Is Surface safe to install?
The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.
What can Surface access on my machine?
The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (be1723764604), read on 2026-10-13. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.