bx33661 using-omv
High-quality growth rule for this project: deepen discipline, do not inflate skill count.
This skill is the session bootstrap. Domain work still lives in the omv-find, omv-audit, omv-repro, and omv-report skills. You use those skills inside the process below — you do not invent parallel workflows.
Platform Invocation
Use the invocation form provided by the active agent:
| Platform | Project manager | Focused skill example |
|---|---|---|
| Pi | /skill:omv |
/skill:omv-audit <id> |
| Codex | $omv |
$omv-audit <id> |
| Claude Code | /omv |
/omv-audit <id> |
In the workflow below, /omv-* is shorthand for the matching focused skill on the active platform.
Iron Laws
1. EVIDENCE BEFORE CLAIMS
2. CLI TRUTH BEFORE PROSE
3. PROCESS BEFORE IMPROVISATION
4. PASSIVE RESEARCH ONLY
When This Applies
Invoke before substantive research action if the user is:
- looking for packages to audit, ranking targets, or running
/omv-find - auditing source → sink → guard, or running
/omv-audit - reproducing, reporting, disclosing, or asking “what next”
- about to say a finding is confirmed, report-ready, non-duplicate, or complete
If you are a subagent doing one delegated slice (e.g. only CVSS math), stay in that slice and still refuse to invent evidence.
Default Research Pipeline
Use this order unless the user already has a later-stage artifact and explicitly continues from it:
1. Orient
omv dashboard OR /omv next
If no campaign and user has a target → omv start / campaign init
2. Open the problem (开题) — prefer Attack Surface Cards when a campaign exists
omv campaign surfaces propose <id>
omv campaign surfaces select <id> --cards <id,id>
omv campaign seed <id>
(If no surfaces file, seed uses generic lanes — still candidate-only.)
3. Deepen one hypothesis at a time
/omv-audit <id> → fill Evidence; never invent file:line
/omv-repro <id> → only when observed_result is the blocker
omv findings validate <id> after material edits
4. Gate before report language
omv review <id> --strict
Optional: /omv-critic <id>, /omv-dedup <id>
5. Report only when ready
/omv-report <id> only if review says ready (or user overrides with explicit draft-only ask)
Then provenance / archive only if user wants lifecycle bookkeeping
Announce briefly when you switch stages, e.g. “Using attack-surface cards to open the campaign” or “Running omv review --strict before any submit language.”
Hard Gates (non-negotiable)
| Claim or action | Required evidence (fresh in this turn when possible) |
|---|---|
| Start multi-hypothesis audit on a target | Campaign exists; prefer surfaces propose/select before bulk seed |
status: confirmed |
omv findings validate <id> OK; source/sink/guard with concrete refs; submission score ≥ 75; no unresolved blockers |
“Exploit works” / exploitability: proven |
Local observed_result not unknown, or user-supplied observation recorded into Evidence |
| “Ready to submit” / submission-ready report | omv review <id> --strict → ready (or user explicitly asks for draft-only triage) |
| “Not a duplicate” | Dedup fields filled from real searches; if offline, say not searched — never invent CVE IDs |
| “Done” / “fixed research complete” | State remaining unknowns; do not imply CNA acceptance |
Forbidden shortcuts
- Do not write submission-ready VulDB/GHSA/OSV prose for
blockedor low-scorecandidatefindings. - Do not treat sink presence alone as a vulnerability.
- Do not attack live third-party services or auto-run exploit payloads.
- Do not create ThreatMap/Verification/report artifacts as fake proof during seed.
- Do not skip CLI validation by “manually eyeballing” YAML when
omvis available.
Red Flags (stop and correct)
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| “This is obviously vulnerable” | Without source→sink→guard + version, it is a hypothesis |
| “I’ll confirm first and fill evidence later” | Confirm is a gate, not a vibe |
| “Review is optional for a draft” | Drafts must be labeled triage; never “ready to submit” |
| “Duplicate search will slow us down” | Missing dedup is a common CNA rejection |
| “One more skill will fix this” | Prefer stronger gates and better evidence; avoid skill sprawl |
| “The model said high confidence” | Confidence without file:line is still low for omv |
| “Surfaces/cards are overkill” | Cards are how we open problems; lanes alone are the thin path |
Skill Priority
When multiple omv skills apply:
- Process — this skill (
using-omv),/omv next, campaign/surfaces - Depth — find → audit → repro
- Gate — review / critic / dedup
- Output — report / disclose
Do not jump to report because the user said “CVE” if Evidence is incomplete — run the gate and show the gap.
Quality Over Sprawl
Prefer:
- tighter HARD-GATEs and CLI checks
- better Attack Surface catalog and Evidence fields
- adversarial verification when stakes are high
Avoid:
- new
/omv-*skills for every idea - parallel prose workflows that bypass
.omv/ - automating confirmation without observation
Minimal CLI Cheatsheet
omv dashboard
omv start --target <name> --ecosystem <eco> --vuln <classes> --no-interactive
omv campaign surfaces propose <id>
omv campaign surfaces select <id> --cards <id,id>
omv campaign seed <id>
omv findings validate <id>
omv review <id> --strict
If omv is missing: install it with npm install --global oh-my-vul. Pi already manages the Skills installed by pi install npm:oh-my-vul, so Pi users should continue with omv version or omv start and must not run omv setup. In Codex or Claude Code, run the matching omv setup --platform codex|claude-code command and re-check with omv doctor --platform ....