CTF Writeup Generator

Problem

CTF solves often leave evidence scattered across terminal output, draft scripts, screenshots, and chat history. When the result has to be submitted or reviewed, the writeup may end up fragmented: partial snippets, missing imports, unclear flag handling, and accidental sensitive data. ctf writeup targets that gap: after a challenge is solved, it turns the working artifacts into a submission-style writeup rather than a broad technical recap.

How It Works

The skill is organized around submission validation. It first collects three kinds of information from the current session, challenge files, and user input:

• Metadata: title, event, category, difficulty, points, and flag format.
• Solution artifacts: exploit scripts, payloads, screenshots, and command output.
• Timeline: key steps, dead ends, and pivots.

It then generates writeup.md using a submission format. The preferred output is one clean path: start from the challenge data and end by printing the flag. Code blocks should be tagged, scripts should include necessary imports, variable names, and comments, and the writeup should avoid multiple disconnected snippets that force the reader to reconstruct the solve. Before finalizing, it checks metadata, flag retention or redaction, reproducibility, runnable code, sensitive data, tool versions, and attribution.

Boundaries

This skill is best suited for a solved challenge that needs a clean submission, teammate review, or post-event archive. It is not a general security documentation generator and will not invent missing exploit details. The user should provide enough session context, script fragments, and flag format; redaction for private infrastructure or credentials must be handled explicitly. When multiple solves exist, it defaults to one clear path instead of listing every alternative.