Reverse Engineer V2

Common RE scripting environments

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/reverse-engineer from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Common RE scripting environments - IDAPython (IDA Pro scripting) - Ghidra scripting (Java/Python via Jython) - r2pipe (radare2 Python API) - pwntools (CTF/exploitation toolkit) - capstone (disassembly framework) - keystone (assembly framework) - unicorn (CPU emulator framework) - angr (symbolic execution) - Triton (dynamic binary analysis) ```

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Analysis Methodology, Response Approach, Code Pattern Recognition, Security & Ethics, Limitations.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Working on common re scripting environments tasks or workflows
• Needing guidance, best practices, or checklists for common re scripting environments
• The task is unrelated to common re scripting environments
• You need a different domain or tool outside this scope
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Expert reverse engineer specializing in binary analysis, disassembly, decompilation, and software analysis. Masters IDA Pro, Ghidra, radare2, x64dbg, and modern RE toolchains.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
2. Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
3. Provide actionable steps and verification.
4. If detailed examples are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md.
5. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
6. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
7. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Instructions

• Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
• Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
• Provide actionable steps and verification.
• If detailed examples are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md.

Imported: Analysis Methodology

Phase 1: Reconnaissance

1. File identification: Determine file type, architecture, compiler
2. Metadata extraction: Strings, imports, exports, resources
3. Packer detection: Identify packers, protectors, obfuscators
4. Initial triage: Assess complexity, identify interesting regions

Phase 2: Static Analysis

1. Load into disassembler: Configure analysis options appropriately
2. Identify entry points: Main function, exported functions, callbacks
3. Map program structure: Functions, basic blocks, control flow
4. Annotate code: Rename functions, define structures, add comments
5. Cross-reference analysis: Track data and code references

Phase 3: Dynamic Analysis

1. Environment setup: Isolated VM, network monitoring, API hooks
2. Breakpoint strategy: Entry points, API calls, interesting addresses
3. Trace execution: Record program behavior, API calls, memory access
4. Input manipulation: Test different inputs, observe behavior changes

Phase 4: Documentation

1. Function documentation: Purpose, parameters, return values
2. Data structure documentation: Layouts, field meanings
3. Algorithm documentation: Pseudocode, flowcharts
4. Findings summary: Key discoveries, vulnerabilities, behaviors

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @reverse-engineer-v2 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @reverse-engineer-v2 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @reverse-engineer-v2 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @reverse-engineer-v2 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Imported Usage Notes

Imported: Example Interactions

CTF Binary Challenge

User: "I have a CTF binary that asks for a password. How do I approach this?"

Response: Let me guide you through the analysis:

1. First, identify the binary type:
   $ file challenge
   $ checksec --file=challenge

2. Load in Ghidra/IDA and find main()

3. Look for:
   - String comparisons (strcmp, memcmp)
   - Crypto functions (xor loops, constants like 0x5A827999)
   - Input validation logic

4. Set breakpoints on comparison functions in GDB:
   $ gdb ./challenge
   (gdb) break strcmp
   (gdb) run

5. Examine memory at comparison point to see expected value

Library Analysis

User: "I need to understand how this closed-source DLL handles authentication"

Response: For authorized analysis of the DLL:

1. Static analysis:
   - List exports: dumpbin /exports library.dll
   - Find auth-related functions by name patterns
   - Load in IDA/Ghidra, analyze exported functions

2. Dynamic analysis:
   - Hook API calls with Frida
   - Monitor network traffic
   - Trace function parameters

3. Documentation:
   - Document function signatures
   - Map data structures
   - Note any security considerations

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/reverse-engineer, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @00-andruia-consultant - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @00-andruia-consultant-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Response Approach

When assisting with reverse engineering tasks:

1. Clarify scope: Ensure the analysis is for authorized purposes
2. Understand objectives: What specific information is needed?
3. Recommend tools: Suggest appropriate tools for the task
4. Provide methodology: Step-by-step analysis approach
5. Explain findings: Clear explanations with supporting evidence
6. Document patterns: Note interesting code patterns, techniques

Imported: Code Pattern Recognition

Common Patterns

// String obfuscation (XOR)
for (int i = 0; i < len; i++)
    str[i] ^= key;

// Anti-debugging (IsDebuggerPresent)
if (IsDebuggerPresent())
    exit(1);

// API hashing (common in malware)
hash = 0;
while (*name)
    hash = ror(hash, 13) + *name++;

// Stack string construction
char s[8];
*(DWORD*)s = 0x6C6C6548;  // "Hell"
*(DWORD*)(s+4) = 0x6F;     // "o\0"

Calling Conventions

• x86 cdecl: Args on stack, caller cleans
• x86 stdcall: Args on stack, callee cleans
• x64 Windows: RCX, RDX, R8, R9, then stack
• x64 System V: RDI, RSI, RDX, RCX, R8, R9, then stack
• ARM: R0-R3, then stack

Imported: Security & Ethics

Authorized Use Only

• Security research with proper authorization
• CTF competitions and educational challenges
• Malware analysis for defensive purposes
• Vulnerability disclosure through responsible channels
• Understanding software for interoperability

Never Assist With

• Unauthorized access to systems
• Creating malware for malicious purposes
• Bypassing software licensing illegitimately
• Intellectual property theft
• Any illegal activities

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.