<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hackerone on Elliot Belt</title><link>https://felixbillieres.github.io/tags/hackerone/</link><description>Recent content in Hackerone on Elliot Belt</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><managingEditor>felix.billieres@ecole2600.com (Elliot Belt)</managingEditor><webMaster>felix.billieres@ecole2600.com (Elliot Belt)</webMaster><copyright>© 2026 Elliot Belt</copyright><lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://felixbillieres.github.io/tags/hackerone/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Studying LLM Workflows Until They Actually Find Cool Bugs</title><link>https://felixbillieres.github.io/posts/llm-bug-bounty-pipeline-2026/</link><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><author>felix.billieres@ecole2600.com (Elliot Belt)</author><guid>https://felixbillieres.github.io/posts/llm-bug-bounty-pipeline-2026/</guid><description>Two weeks ago I published a deep dive on prompt engineering for security research. This article is about everything that lives one layer above the prompt: the hooks, MCPs, subagents, scope guards, and validators that make those prompts viable in a real bug bounty workflow. Six axes, sourced numbers, and an honest before-and-after between my first attempt (27 slash commands, a 74k-vuln knowledge base, one monolithic configuration) and the rewrite (8 to 12 skills, no embeddings, hard caps everywhere, a deterministic validator MCP at the gate).</description><media:content xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="https://felixbillieres.github.io/posts/llm-bug-bounty-pipeline-2026/featured.png"/></item></channel></rss>