ctf-writeup
Generates a single standardized submission-style CTF writeup for competition handoff and organizer review. Use after solving a CTF challenge to document the solution steps, tools used, and lessons learned in a structured format.
What this skill does
# CTF Write-up Generator
Generate a standardized submission-style CTF writeup for a solved challenge.
Default behavior:
- During an active competition, optimize for speed, clarity, and reproducibility
- Keep writeups short enough that a teammate or organizer can validate the solve quickly
- Always produce a `submission`-style writeup
- Prefer one complete solve script from challenge data to final flag
## Workflow
### Step 1: Gather Information
Collect the following from the current session, challenge files, and user input:
1. **Challenge metadata** — name, CTF event, category, difficulty, points, flag format
2. **Solution artifacts** — exploit scripts, payloads, screenshots, command output
3. **Timeline** — key steps taken, dead ends, pivots
```bash
# Scan for exploit scripts and artifacts
find . -name '*.py' -o -name '*.sh' -o -name 'exploit*' -o -name 'solve*' | head -20
# Check for flags in output files
grep -rniE '(flag|ctf|eno|htb|pico)\{' . 2>/dev/null
```
### Step 2: Generate Write-up
Write the writeup file as `writeup.md` (or `writeup-<challenge-name>.md`) using the submission template below.
---
## Templates
### Submission Format
```markdown
---
title: "<Challenge Name>"
ctf: "<CTF Event Name>"
date: YYYY-MM-DD
category: web|pwn|crypto|reverse|forensics|osint|malware|misc
difficulty: easy|medium|hard
points: <number>
flag_format: "flag{...}"
author: "<your name or team>"
---
# <Challenge Name>
## Summary
<1-2 sentences: what the challenge was and the core technique. Keep it direct.>
## Solution
### Step 1: <Action>
<Explain the key observation in 3-8 short lines. Keep it direct.>
\`\`\`python
<one complete solving script from provided challenge data to printing the final flag>
\`\`\`
### Step 2: <Action> (optional)
<Only add this when a second short step genuinely helps readability, such as separating the core observation from final verification.>
### Step 3: <Action> (optional)
<Use only if the challenge really needs it. Keep the total number of steps small.>
## Flag
\`\`\`
flag{example_flag_here}
\`\`\`
```
Guidance:
- Prefer 1-3 short steps total
- Keep code to the smallest complete solving script
- Do not split "recover secret", "derive key", and "decrypt flag" into separate partial snippets
- The script should start from the challenge data and end by printing the flag
- Avoid long background sections
- Avoid dead ends unless they explain a key pivot
- Avoid multiple alternative solves; pick one clean path
- Redact the flag only if the user explicitly asks for redaction
---
## Best Practices Checklist
Before finalizing the writeup, verify:
- [ ] **Metadata complete** — title, CTF, date, category, difficulty, points, author all filled
- [ ] **Flag handling matches request** — keep the real flag unless the user asked for redaction
- [ ] **Reproducible steps** — a reader can follow your writeup and reproduce the solution
- [ ] **Code is runnable** — exploit scripts include all imports, correct variable names, and comments
- [ ] **No sensitive data** — no real credentials, API keys, or private infrastructure details
- [ ] **Length stays concise** — the writeup is short enough for fast review
- [ ] **Tools and versions noted** — mention specific tool versions if behavior depends on them
- [ ] **Proper attribution** — credit teammates, referenced writeups, or tools that were essential
- [ ] **Grammar and formatting** — consistent heading levels, code blocks have language tags
## Quality Guidelines
**DO:**
- Explain just enough for fast verification
- Include one complete solving path, not multiple alternative routes
- Include one complete script that goes all the way to the final flag
- Show actual output (truncated if very long) to prove the approach worked
- Tag code blocks with language (`python`, `bash`, `sql`, etc.)
- Keep the main path front-loaded so a reader can validate it quickly
**DON'T:**
- Copy-paste raw terminal dumps without explanation
- Paste several partial snippets that force the reader to reconstruct the final solve
- Leave placeholder text in the final writeup
- Include irrelevant tangents that don't contribute to the solution
- Assume the reader knows the specific challenge setup
## Challenge
$ARGUMENTS
Related in Code Review
gstack
IncludedFast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with elements, verify state, diff before/after, take annotated screenshots, test responsive layouts, forms, uploads, dialogs, and capture bug evidence. Use when asked to open or test a site, verify a deployment, dogfood a user flow, or file a bug with screenshots. (gstack)
startup-due-diligence
IncludedLegal due diligence review for seed-stage and Series A startups (US, Delaware C-Corp focus). Supports both investor and founder perspectives. Capabilities include: (1) Interactive document review and issue spotting; (2) Document request list generation; (3) Cap table and SAFE/convertible note analysis; (4) Red flag identification with severity ratings; (5) Diligence report generation. TRIGGERS: due diligence, DD, startup investment, cap table review, Series A, seed round, investor diligence, legal review startup, SAFE analysis, convertible note, 409A, founder vesting.
interview-master
IncludedThis skill should be used when the user asks to "generate interview questions", "prepare for interview", "optimize resume", "conduct mock interview", "analyze git commits for resume", "generate resume from code", "review my resume", or mentions interview preparation, career assistance, or extracting project experience from git history. Provides comprehensive interview and career development guidance for both job seekers and interviewers.
fix-issue
IncludedFixes GitHub issues using parallel analysis agents for root cause investigation, code exploration, and regression detection. Reads issue context from gh CLI, searches codebase and memory for related patterns, generates a fix with tests, and links the resolution back to the issue via PR. Includes prevention analysis to avoid recurrence. Use when debugging errors, resolving regressions, fixing bugs, or triaging issues.
sf-apex
IncludedGenerates and reviews Salesforce Apex code with 150-point scoring. TRIGGER when: user writes, reviews, or fixes Apex classes, triggers, test classes, batch/queueable/schedulable jobs, or touches .cls/.trigger files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: LWC JavaScript (use sf-lwc), Flow XML (use sf-flow), SOQL-only queries (use sf-soql), or non-Salesforce code.
swift-development
IncludedComprehensive Swift development for building, testing, and deploying iOS/macOS applications. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Build Swift packages or Xcode projects from command line, (2) Run tests with XCTest or Swift Testing framework, (3) Manage iOS simulators with simctl, (4) Handle code signing, provisioning profiles, and app distribution, (5) Format or lint Swift code with SwiftFormat/SwiftLint, (6) Work with Swift Package Manager (SPM), (7) Implement Swift 6 concurrency patterns (async/await, actors, Sendable), (8) Create SwiftUI views with MVVM architecture, (9) Set up Core Data or SwiftData persistence, or any other Swift/iOS/macOS development tasks.