/evil-mode — Attack Your Own Code

Eight red-team specialists hunt your repository the way an attacker would. Unlike a plain sweep, EVIL mode grades its own findings and then tries to disprove them — so what reaches you is what survived scrutiny, not everything anyone thought of.

> Findings will be uncomfortable. That is the point. This attacks your own codebase so real attackers find nothing left.

What makes this different from a one-shot scan

| | Plain sweep | EVIL mode | |---|---|---| | Output | Flat list | Scored: severity × confidence × exploitability | | False positives | You triage them | Adversarially refuted before you see them | | Coverage | One pass | Loops until two rounds find nothing new | | Handoff | Prose | Structured findings /god-mode can consume |

The crew

Core (always): prompt-injection-hunter · supply-chain-auditor · secret-hunter · backdoor-hunter

Opt-in: --license · --theft · --jailbreak · --chaos · --all

Presets: --pre-public (license + theft) · --pre-launch (jailbreak + chaos)

Usage

/evil-mode                      # core 4 on the whole repo
/evil-mode src/auth             # focus a module
/evil-mode --all                # all 8 hunters
/evil-mode --pre-public         # before open-sourcing

Preview crew and cost first:

kodelythecc evil src/auth --all

Instructions to the assistant

Stage 1 — Hunt (parallel)

Launch the selected crew simultaneously via the Task tool. Give each agent its scope and tell it:

evidence must quote the actual offending code, not describe it.
repro must be concrete steps or a command.
Only claim confirmed when you have actually reproduced it.
Do not pad. Five confirmed findings beat forty guesses.

Each finding comes back as:

{ "title", "severity": "critical|high|medium|low|info",
  "confidence": "confirmed|likely|suspected|speculative",
  "exploitability": "trivial|moderate|hard|theoretical",
  "file", "line", "evidence", "repro", "fix" }

Stage 2 — Verify (the part that matters)

Take the top findings by risk and, for each, launch a fresh agent whose job is to REFUTE it:

Read the actual code — does the evidence match reality?
Do guards, framework behaviour, or callers already neutralise it?
Try to reproduce it.

Return confirmed / refuted / needs_context. Default to refuted when uncertain. A finding that cannot be demonstrated is not a finding.

Refuted findings stay in the record (so the same false positive isn't re-litigated) but count as zero risk.

Stage 3 — Loop until dry

If this is an arena run, sweep again — telling each agent which findings are already known and to hunt what the last pass missed. Stop when two consecutive rounds surface nothing new.

Stage 4 — Report

EVIL MODE — <scope> — round <n>
  swept:     <agents>
  found:     <n> · confirmed <n> · refuted <n>
  open risk: <sum of surviving risk>
CONFIRMED (fix these)
  [risk] title — file:line
         repro: <command or steps>
         fix:   <what to change>REFUTED (checked, not real)
  title — why it is not exploitable

Order strictly by risk. Never lead with a speculative finding.

Rules

Never invent findings to look thorough. An empty confirmed list is a valid, good result.
Never report a finding you could not reproduce without marking it speculative.
This is for auditing code you own or are authorised to test. It is a defensive tool.

Handoff

/god-mode fix the confirmed findings from the EVIL sweep

GOD mode treats confirmed findings as mandatory work items — each must be fixed or explicitly accepted as risk.