claude-bug-bounty vs open-kritt
Autonomous bug-bounty agent for the terminal — recon, 20 vuln classes, a validation gate and submission-ready HackerOne/Bugcrowd reports. Runs as a Claude Code plugin or standalone on free providers. — versus — Self-hosted platform orchestrating AI agents for vulnerability research: chain focused prompts into reusable workflows, run them in parallel over Codex or Claude Code, dedupe and rank findings.
Both hunt code vulnerabilities with agents: claude-bug-bounty is one autonomous pipeline tuned for bounty submissions; open-kritt is a workflow platform where researchers design the hunt.
| claude-bug-bounty | open-kritt | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 4.2k | 1.6k |
| Forks | 745 | 284 |
| Language | Python | JavaScript |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Last activity | 8 days ago | yesterday |
| Topics | security | security |
| Curated connections | 5 | 2 |
claude-bug-bounty — the curator's take
For solo bounty hunters who want an agent to run recon→hunt→validate→report end to end: the strict validation gate before a finding becomes a report is the useful part (cuts false-positive noise reviewers hate), and standalone mode on Ollama means no subscription. NOT a replacement for skilled manual testing on serious targets, and point it ONLY at assets you're authorized to test — autonomous scanning of others' systems is illegal. Report quality still needs a human pass before submission.
open-kritt — the curator's take
The engineering acknowledges the real problem: point-a-model-at-a-repo doesn't find vulns, so it decomposes research into focused parallel tasks and invests in what security teams actually need — dedup, consistent schemas, severity ranking, PoC validation post-scripts. When NOT: AGPL-3.0 matters if you're a vendor embedding it; findings are only as good as your workflow prompts — it's a power tool for researchers, not a push-button scanner.