Bug Bounty Mode is Spectrion's dedicated workflow for authorized security research.

It is designed for cases where the user is working inside a real bug bounty program, with a published scope, rules, and permission to test specific targets. The mode is not a generic hacking mode. It is a structured research environment that helps the agent stay inside scope, gather evidence, validate impact safely, and produce report-ready findings.

The core idea is simple:

Bug Bounty Mode turns security research into a scoped, evidence-driven workflow.

Why a Dedicated Mode Exists

General-purpose agents often fail at bug bounty work because they mix together:

• loose recon;
• unclear scope;
• unverified assumptions;
• noisy vulnerability guesses;
• unsafe active testing;
• weak evidence;
• incomplete reports.

Spectrion separates bug bounty work into a dedicated mode with stricter rules.

The agent must know:

• which program is being tested;
• where the official rules are;
• which target is in scope;
• what testing is allowed;
• what evidence is needed;
• when user approval is required.

This makes the workflow safer and more useful.

Intake First

Bug Bounty Mode starts with intake.

The agent should not begin active work until it has the minimum required context:

• program name or platform;
• official program/rules/scope URL;
• exact in-scope target URL;
• scope summary or limits;
• user intent for the current test.

For example:

Program: HackerOne Acme
Rules: https://hackerone.com/acme
Target: https://app.example.com
Scope: app.example.com only, no DoS, no social engineering, no destructive testing

If the user only says:

Scan this website.

Bug Bounty Mode should stop and ask for the program and scope information.

That gate prevents accidental out-of-scope testing.

Safe Recon Layer

Spectrion includes a read-only recon tool:

bug_bounty_recon

It is designed for passive or low-impact inspection after intake is complete.

Supported recon actions include:

• intake summary;
• HTTP overview;
• security header review;
• robots.txt and sitemap review;
• link extraction;
• JavaScript endpoint extraction;
• technology fingerprinting;
• passive recon bundle.

The important rule:

bug_bounty_recon does not exploit, mutate state, brute force, or perform destructive actions.

Its output is treated as signal, not proof.

For example, missing security headers are not automatically a vulnerability. An exposed endpoint is not automatically a vulnerability. A technology fingerprint is not automatically a vulnerability.

Recon creates hypotheses.

Validation creates evidence.

Approval-Gated Validation

Active validation is handled by:

bug_bounty_validate

This tool is approval-gated. The agent must not use it silently.

It requires explicit user approval for active checks because even low-impact probes can still interact with a live target.

Supported validation actions include:

• reflected parameter probe;
• CORS origin probe;
• CSRF form review.

The validation tool returns evidence levels and impact notes. It should not label a bug as confirmed unless there is proof and practical impact.

The rule is:

No confirmed vulnerability without proof and impact.

Evidence Levels

Bug Bounty Mode should separate findings into evidence levels.

Useful categories:

RECON
HYPOTHESIS
INDICATION
PROVEN
REJECTED

RECON

Raw observations.

Examples:

• endpoint found in JavaScript;
• missing header;
• interesting route;
• technology fingerprint.

HYPOTHESIS

A possible issue worth checking.

Example:

This endpoint may expose another user's object if authorization is weak.

INDICATION

Some supporting evidence exists, but impact is not fully proven.

Example:

The marker is reflected, but execution context and exploitability are not proven.

PROVEN

The issue has concrete, reproducible proof and impact.

Example:

Account A can access Account B's private resource using a changed object ID, with no special privileges.

REJECTED

The hypothesis was tested safely and did not hold.

This matters because good bug bounty work is not just finding bugs. It is also eliminating false positives.

Hypothesis Ledger

Bug Bounty Mode should maintain a visible hypothesis ledger.

The ledger tracks:

• hypothesis;
• target;
• evidence;
• status;
• next step;
• risk level;
• whether active validation is approved;
• whether the finding is reportable.

Example:

H1: Possible IDOR in /api/orders/{id}
Status: HYPOTHESIS
Evidence: endpoint discovered in app bundle
Next step: test with owned accounts only
Approval: required before active validation
Reportable: no

This keeps the agent disciplined. It also lets the user understand what is known, what is guessed, and what has been proven.

Chaining Graph

Many real bug bounty findings are not a single isolated bug. They are chains.

Example:

weak reset flow
-> token leakage
-> account takeover

or:

low-severity IDOR
-> internal metadata exposure
-> privilege escalation path

Bug Bounty Mode includes the concept of a chaining graph.

The graph helps the agent model:

• weak signals;
• supporting evidence;
• exploit preconditions;
• impact paths;
• blocked paths;
• strongest proven chain.

The agent should not inflate severity. It should show what is proven and what remains hypothetical.

Specialized Playbooks

Spectrion's bug bounty workflow can attach specialized skills/playbooks for common vulnerability families:

• API and GraphQL testing;
• authorization and IDOR;
• authentication and session logic;
• OAuth and token handling;
• injection;
• XSS and client-side bugs;
• CSRF, CORS, and UI redress;
• SSRF, redirects, and cache poisoning;
• file upload and parser issues;
• cloud secrets and exposed configuration;
• dependency and CVE review;
• mobile app testing;
• business logic;
• reverse engineering;
• custom validation tool building.

The router can attach the right playbook based on the user's target and intent.

For example:

Check for IDOR and BOLA safely.

The runtime can attach the authorization/IDOR playbook and keep the broader bug bounty coordinator active.

Report-Ready Output

Bug bounty work is only valuable if the final report is clear.

A good final finding should include:

• title;
• program and target;
• scope confirmation;
• vulnerability class;
• severity rationale;
• proof of concept;
• reproduction steps;
• observed impact;
• affected accounts or roles;
• evidence screenshots/logs where appropriate;
• remediation suggestion;
• limitations and assumptions.

Bug Bounty Mode should avoid vague claims like:

This might be vulnerable.

Instead, it should produce:

Confirmed finding:
Account A can read Account B's private invoice by changing invoice_id in GET /api/invoices/{id}.

Impact:
Unauthorized disclosure of invoice metadata and billing address.

Evidence:
Request/response pair with redacted account IDs, tested using two owned accounts.

If proof is not complete, the agent should say so clearly and keep the item as HYPOTHESIS or INDICATION.

Safety Rules

Bug Bounty Mode must be conservative by default.

It should not:

• perform DoS or stress testing;
• brute force credentials;
• attack third parties;
• test out-of-scope hosts;
• bypass rate limits aggressively;
• exfiltrate data;
• persist access;
• run destructive payloads;
• submit reports without user approval;
• label unproven issues as confirmed.

It should:

• use official scope;
• prefer read-only recon first;
• ask before active validation;
• use owned/test accounts;
• redact secrets and personal data;
• keep evidence minimal and relevant;
• preserve a clear audit trail;
• report only proven impact.

This is what makes the mode useful for legitimate research instead of noisy scanning.

How the Agent Should Work

A typical Spectrion bug bounty run looks like this:

1. Intake
2. Scope confirmation
3. Visible todo plan
4. Passive recon
5. Hypothesis ledger
6. Safe validation plan
7. User approval for active checks
8. Validation
9. Impact analysis
10. Chaining graph
11. Report drafting
12. User review before submission

The agent should not jump straight to exploitation. It should build confidence step by step.

Tool and Skill Model

Bug Bounty Mode is built from three layers:

Bug Bounty Agent
  -> bug bounty skills/playbooks
  -> safe recon and validation tools

The agent provides the behavioral contract.

The skills provide domain playbooks.

The tools provide bounded execution.

This division matters because bug bounty work needs both intelligence and guardrails.

The LLM can reason about hypotheses, chains, and impact. The tools enforce bounded behavior and produce evidence.

Why This Matters

A good bug bounty assistant should not be a vulnerability slot machine.

It should be a research partner that helps the user:

• stay in scope;
• reduce false positives;
• organize hypotheses;
• validate safely;
• understand impact;
• build stronger reports;
• avoid unsafe behavior.

That is the product value of Spectrion's Bug Bounty Mode.

It makes security research more structured, more auditable, and more useful.

Final Principle

The shortest version:

Recon creates hypotheses.
Validation creates evidence.
Impact creates reportability.
Scope creates permission.

Bug Bounty Mode exists to keep all four connected.

In Spectrion, bug bounty work should not feel like random scanning. It should feel like a disciplined investigation with scope, evidence, validation, and report-ready output.