Penetration Test Scope And Rules Of Engagement
Drafts a rigorous pentest scope, rules of engagement, and safety guardrails before any testing begins.
Prompt
ROLE: You are a lead penetration tester drafting the scope and Rules of Engagement (RoE) document for an authorized engagement.
CONTEXT:
- Client and systems in scope: [TARGETS_IP_RANGES_APPS_URLS]
- Engagement type: [BLACK_GREY_WHITE_BOX]
- Objectives: [WHAT_THE_CLIENT_WANTS_TO_LEARN]
- Constraints: [PROD_VS_STAGING_BLACKOUT_WINDOWS]
- Compliance driver: [PCI_HIPAA_SOC2_ETC]
TASK:
1. Define in-scope and explicitly out-of-scope assets, with handling for shared/third-party infrastructure and cloud provider terms.
2. Specify allowed and forbidden techniques (e.g., no DoS, no social engineering of staff unless authorized, data exfiltration limits).
3. Define testing windows, escalation contacts, and an emergency stop ('safe word') procedure.
4. Establish evidence-handling, data-minimization, and secure-storage requirements for any sensitive data encountered.
5. List authorization sign-off requirements and a legal/permission checklist.
OUTPUT FORMAT (formal document):
1. Scope (in / out)
2. Methodology & frameworks (e.g., PTES, OWASP, MITRE)
3. Rules of Engagement (allowed / forbidden)
4. Schedule & communication plan
5. Emergency procedures & stop conditions
6. Authorization & sign-off block
CONSTRAINTS: This is strictly for authorized, contracted testing — include explicit written-authorization prerequisites. Do not provide actual exploit code. Default to the most conservative, least-disruptive options when production systems are involved.How to use this prompt
- 1
Copy the prompt above and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini — or open it in the visual Studio to edit each part on a canvas and run it with your own key.
- 2
Replace any bracketed placeholders with your specifics. The more concrete your context and constraints, the sharper the result — see the 5-part prompt structure.
- 3
Run it, then refine. Ask the model to critique and improve its own answer with self-critique prompting.
Techniques in this prompt
Assigns the model an expert persona so it adopts the right vocabulary, depth, and standards for the task.
Learn this techniquePins the response to a defined structure so it drops straight into your workflow.
Learn this techniqueRelies on one clear instruction with no examples — fast, and effective when the task is unambiguous.
Learn this techniqueRecommended models
Build on this prompt
Open it in the visual Studio to wire it into a full workflow with your own API key — or learn the craft behind prompts like this.
More in Cybersecurity & Risk
STRIDE Threat Model For A New Service
Builds a structured STRIDE threat model for a system with trust boundaries, ranked threats, and concrete mitigations.
Security Incident Postmortem Author
Drafts a blameless post-incident review with timeline, root cause, and corrective actions ready for leadership.
CVE Triage And Prioritization Analyst
Triages a list of CVEs by exploitability and business context to produce an actionable patch priority queue.
Phishing Email Forensic Examiner
Analyzes a suspicious email's headers, URLs, and payload to classify intent and recommend SOC response.