competition-prompt-injection

Analyzes prompt injection and tool-boundary violations in agentic CTF sandbox challenges.

7|4|Updated Jun 22, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/dbx0/skills --skill competition-prompt-injection-dbx0
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: competition-prompt-injection
Source: https://github.com/dbx0/skills/tree/main/skills/ai-llm/prompt-injection/competition-prompt-injection
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/dbx0/skills --skill competition-prompt-injection-dbx0

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Agentic systems that chain retrieval, memory, planners, and tool calls create trust boundaries where untrusted text can hijack planner behavior, corrupt tool arguments, or expose secrets. This Skill provides a structured methodology to map those layers, prove a minimal exploit chain, and report exactly which boundary failed in CTF sandbox challenges. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Control Stack Mapping: Separates system, developer, user, retrieved, memory, planner, and tool-response layers to distinguish claimed capability from runtime-exposed capability. - Minimal Proof Chains: Reproduces one compact chain from untrusted content to changed planner behavior, altered tool arguments, or secret exposure before exploring variants. - Boundary-Based Reporting: Attributes failures to retrieval, summarizer, planner, executor, tool normalization, or output post-processing, separating instruction drift from actual side effects. - Use Case: During a CTF challenge where a retrieval-augmented agent leaks a flag, use this Skill to trace the poisoned document chunk through the summarizer into the planner and capture the final tool invocation as evidence. ## Quick Start Ask the agent to analyze the prompt injection challenge by mapping the control stack and proving one minimal chain from untrusted content to the final tool call.

Frequently Asked Questions about competition-prompt-injection

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I prove a prompt injection exploit in an agentic system?

Prove prompt injection by building a minimal chain: untrusted content enters context, the instruction boundary changes, planner or executor behavior drifts, and a tool call or secret access produces an observable side effect. Keep the transcript compact with one block per stage.

What is the difference between retrieval poisoning and planner drift?

Retrieval poisoning is malicious content entering through retrieved documents or chunks, while planner drift is the downstream behavioral change in the agent's planning layer. This Skill tracks them as separate layers so you can attribute the failure to the correct boundary.

When should I use this prompt injection analysis skill?

Use it only after the ctf-sandbox-orchestrator has established sandbox assumptions and routed the challenge here. It applies when the challenge centers on trust boundaries inside an agentic system rather than traditional web or binary exploitation.

Why is a malicious string alone not enough to prove prompt injection?

A malicious string without a side effect only shows untrusted text exists, not that a boundary was crossed. Proof requires demonstrating changed planner behavior, altered tool arguments, or secret exposure as an observable result.

What evidence should I preserve during a prompt injection investigation?

Preserve the original malicious chunk or prompt, any intermediate summary or planner drift that matters, and the final tool arguments, file paths, or exposed secret surface. Keep each in a compact evidence block.