composing-vulnerability-report
Read findings JSONL files from cluster 1-4 skills, deduplicate by fingerprint, group by severity, and compose a deliverable- grade markdown vulnerability report with per-finding sections (title, severity, target, detail, remediation, evidence) and a top-level summary table. The canonical written artifact a customer receives at engagement close; precise, reproducible, machine- checkable against source findings. Use when: closing an engagement, generating an interim report, regenerating after CVE or OWASP enrichment, or producing the input for generating-executive-summary. Threshold: findings missing required fields are dropped. HIGH and CRITICAL findings highlighted in the summary section. Trigger with: "compose vuln report", "write pentest report", "generate vulnerability deliverable", "render findings to report".
Allowed Tools
Provided by Plugin
penetration-tester
25-skill pentest pack with engagement governance, network/code/dependency scans, OWASP Top 10 mapping, and exec-readable reporting. Heavy-hitter compliant; chain-of-custody attestable.
Installation
This skill is included in the penetration-tester plugin:
/plugin install penetration-tester@claude-code-plugins-plus
Click to copy
Instructions
Composing Vulnerability Report
Overview
After cluster 1-4 scan skills run, each one produces a Findings
file. A typical engagement ends up with eight to twenty such files
across the different skill categories. The customer wants ONE
vulnerability report — comprehensive, deduplicated, organized by
severity, with each finding cross-referenced to its source skill
and target.
This skill consumes one or more findings files (JSONL preferred,
JSON list also accepted), deduplicates entries by the canonical
fingerprint defined in lib/finding.py, enriches each finding
with a CVSS v3.1 vector when one isn't present (using a deterministic
heuristic based on severity + category — explicitly noted as
"derived, not assigned by NVD" in the output), and emits a single
markdown report with per-finding sections plus a top-level
summary table.
The report has a defined structure that downstream tools (next
two skills in cluster 6) consume:
- Header — engagement ID, generation timestamp, source files
- Summary table — finding count by severity
- Per-severity sections — CRITICAL first, then HIGH, MEDIUM,
LOW, INFO
- Per-finding subsections — title, severity, target, detail,
remediation, evidence, references
When the skill produces findings
| Finding | Severity | Threshold | Affected control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source file unparseable | HIGH | JSON/JSONL parse fails | (operational) |
| Finding missing required field | HIGH | A finding record is missing title, severity, target, detail, or remediation | (operational) |
| Duplicate fingerprint across files | INFO | Same finding appears in N>1 sources; reported as deduplication count | (informational) |
| Source file has zero findings | INFO | Empty or all-info-only file; reported but not an error | (informational) |
| Report generated cleanly | INFO | Positive confirmation | (informational) |
Prerequisites
- Python 3.9+
- One or more findings files in JSON or JSONL format produced by
any cluster 1-4 scan skill (which all share lib/finding.py
schema)
Instructions
Step 1 — Gather findings sources
By default the skill reads every file matching
engagement/findings/.json and engagement/findings/.jsonl.
Override with --source FILE (repeatable).
Step 2 — Run the composer
python3 ./scripts/compose_report.py engagements/acme-2026-q2/
Options:
Usage: compose_report.py PATH [OPTIONS]
Options:
--source FILE Specific findings file (repeatable; overrides default glob)
--report-output FILE Write the composed report here (default:
PATH/reports/vulnerability-report.md)
--engagement-id ID Override the engagement ID (default: parse from PATH/roe.yaml)
--output FILE Operational findings output (this skill's own findings)
--format FMT json | jsonl | markdown (default: markdown)
--min-severity SEV Filter report to findings at or above this severity
--include-info Include INFO-severity findings in the report (default: omit)
Step 3 — Review the report
The output report has a predictable structure. The header
identifies the engagement, the source files, and the generation
timestamp. The summary table shows finding counts by severity.
Per-severity sections follow.
Each finding subsection includes a stable anchor (the fingerprint)
so cross-references from later artifacts (executive summary,
OWASP mapping) resolve into the report cleanly.
Step 4 — Verify against sources
python3 ./scripts/compose_report.py engagements/acme-2026-q2/ --format json --output /tmp/compose-findings.json
jq '.[] | select(.severity == "high")' /tmp/compose-findings.json
If the report references a finding the operator didn't expect,
trace back via the finding's skill_id + target to the source
file.
Examples
Example 1 — End-of-engagement report
python3 ./scripts/compose_report.py engagements/acme-2026-q2/ \
--report-output engagements/acme-2026-q2/reports/vulnerability-report.md
Example 2 — Interim report mid-engagement
python3 ./scripts/compose_report.py engagements/acme-2026-q2/ \
--min-severity high \
--report-output engagements/acme-2026-q2/reports/interim-2026-06-15.md
--min-severity high produces an interim report covering only
HIGH and CRITICAL findings — useful for in-engagement customer
syncs.
Example 3 — Regenerate after OWASP mapping
python3 ./scripts/compose_report.py engagements/acme-2026-q2/ \
--source engagements/acme-2026-q2/findings/all-findings-with-owasp.jsonl \
--report-output engagements/acme-2026-q2/reports/vulnerability-report-v2.md
Re-run after mapping-findings-to-owasp-top10 has enriched each
finding with its OWASP category; the regenerated report includes
the OWASP tag in each per-finding subsection.
Output
JSON / JSONL / Markdown per lib/report.py for the skill's own
operational findings. The PRIMARY output is the composed
vulnerability report, written as standalone Markdown to the
--report-output path.
Each operational Finding includes:
id—compose:::: severity— CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / INFOcategory—report-compositionsummary— what went wrong (or right) during compositionevidence— source files, finding counts, dedup stats
Error Handling
- PATH missing or empty → emits CRITICAL operational finding,
exits 1.
- Source file unparseable → emits HIGH operational finding,
skips the file, continues with remaining sources.
- No findings files found → emits HIGH operational finding,
exits 1.
- Output report path not writable → emits HIGH operational
finding, exits 1.
- Finding missing required fields → emits HIGH operational
finding, omits that record from the report, continues.
Resources
references/THEORY.md— Vulnerability-report structure history
(NIST SP 800-115, OWASP Testing Guide), CVSS v3.1 vector
composition, severity scoring tradeoffs (CVSS vs intrinsic vs
EPSS), finding-deduplication theory, why fingerprint-based dedup
beats title-based
references/PLAYBOOK.md— Report-template variants per
audience (technical, executive, regulatory), per-finding
remediation phrasing patterns, evidence-redaction patterns
for distributed reports, cross-reference protocol with the
OWASP-mapping and exec-summary skills