GO — Healthy across the board

• Last commit 8w ago
• 10 active contributors
• MIT licensed
• CI configured
• Tests present
• ⚠ Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 57% of recent commits

_{Maintenance signals: commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests}

hackingtool is an all-in-one Python 3.10+ CLI aggregator that bundles 185+ security tools across 20 categories (OSINT, web, DDoS, exploit frameworks, forensics, mobile, cloud, AD, etc.) with intelligent OS-aware menus, real-time install status indicators, and a search/tag/recommendation system. It solves the fragmentation problem of maintaining dozens of separate security tool repositories by wrapping them in a unified interactive menu interface. Monolithic Python CLI: hackingtool.py is the entry point; tools/ directory contains 20 category modules (active_directory.py, ddos.py, exploit_frameworks.py, etc.) that define tool objects with metadata (name, URL, install command, tags); tools/others/ holds utility-specific modules (hash_crack.py, phishing_attack.py). Core logic lives in core.py (menu rendering), os_detect.py (platform detection), config.py (settings), constants.py (shared data).

Penetration testers, security researchers, and red teamers who need a centralized toolkit launcher that automatically hides Linux-only tools on macOS, shows which tools are installed, and allows batch installation—users who want one entry point instead of managing 100+ GitHub repos.

Actively developed (v2.0.0 released with Python 3.10 migration and 35 new tools); 12.6k+ stars indicate solid community adoption. Has GitHub Actions CI (lint_python.yml, test_install.yml) and responsive commits. Not enterprise-grade—it's a community aggregator rather than a hardened framework—but production-ready for its intended use case.

Single maintainer (Z4nzu) risk is real for a 185-tool aggregator; if unmaintained, many wrapped tools will bitrot. Minimal dependencies (only rich>=13.0.0 listed) reduces supply-chain risk. No obvious test suite for tool integrations—relies on CI for basic install validation. Breaking changes possible during major version transitions (v1 → v2 dropped Python 2).

Version 2.0.0 completed: Python 3.10+ migration done, OS-aware filtering implemented, 35 new tools added, search/tag/recommend features shipped. GitHub Actions verify lint and install on PRs. No visible active PR branch data in file list, but issue templates for tool_request.md suggest ongoing community contribution intake.

git clone https://github.com/Z4nzu/hackingtool.git
cd hackingtool
python3 install.py
# or for manual install: pip install -r requirements.txt && python3 hackingtool.py

Daily commands:

python3 hackingtool.py
# Interactive menu opens; press number to select category, then tool
# Commands: '/' to search, 't' for tag filter, 'r' for recommendations, 'q' to quit

• hackingtool.py — Main entry point and orchestrator—every contributor must understand how the tool initializes and routes user selections through the menu system.
• core.py — Core CLI framework and abstraction layer—defines how tools are discovered, executed, and output is rendered; critical for understanding the execution model.
• tools/tool_manager.py — Tool registry and lifecycle management—maps category selections to tool instantiation and handles installation/execution workflows.
• config.py — Global configuration and environment detection—defines paths, installation directories, and runtime settings that affect all tools.
• constants.py — Central constants and category definitions—every tool category and menu structure is defined here; essential for adding new tools or categories.
• requirements.txt — Python dependency manifest—currently minimal (rich only); contributors must verify new tool dependencies are explicitly listed here.
• install.py — Installation orchestrator for all tools—handles OS detection, package manager calls, and tool-specific setup; critical for supporting new tool installations.

• hackingtool.py (Python,) — Application bootstrap and main loop—initializes Core, handles top-level user interaction.

Add a New Security Tool to an Existing Category

1. Define the tool class in the appropriate category file (e.g., tools/web_attack.py) inheriting from a base Tool class. (tools/web_attack.py)
2. Register the tool in tools/tool_manager.py by adding it to the appropriate category's tool list. (tools/tool_manager.py)
3. Add installation logic to install.py—specify the package manager (apt/brew) and tool name. (install.py)
4. Update constants.py if the tool requires new metadata or menu descriptions. (constants.py)
5. Test the tool by running hackingtool.py and navigating to the category menu. (hackingtool.py)

Add a New Tool Category (e.g., Container Security)

1. Create a new file tools/container_security.py with tool class definitions. (tools/container_security.py)
2. Register the new category in tools/tool_manager.py—add it to CATEGORIES dict. (tools/tool_manager.py)
3. Add category name and menu position to constants.py. (constants.py)
4. Export the new module from tools/init.py. (tools/__init__.py)
5. Test category appearance in the main menu via hackingtool.py. (hackingtool.py)

Modify the Installation Process for a Specific OS

1. Review os_detect.py to understand how OS type is determined. (os_detect.py)
2. Add or update OS-specific installation logic in install.py—check for OS type and branch accordingly. (install.py)
3. Update Dockerfile if the tool requires additional system packages or setup. (Dockerfile)
4. Test via GitHub Actions CI pipeline in .github/workflows/test_install.yml. (.github/workflows/test_install.yml)

• Python 3.10+ — Cross-platform language support; allows wrapping Unix/Linux tools; extensive security tool ecosystem via subprocess.
• Rich library — Terminal UI rendering—enables colored tables, panels, spinners for user-friendly CLI presentation without external dependencies.
• Docker & docker-compose — Containerization ensures consistent environment across dev, test, and deployment; simplifies dependency management.
• GitHub Actions CI/CD — Automated testing of installation workflows on multiple OS/Python versions; ensures reliability before releases.
• Subprocess-based tool invocation — Wraps external security tools (metasploit, nmap, sqlmap, etc.) without reimplementing them; leverages existing battle-tested utilities.

• Menu-driven CLI instead of argument-based CLI

  • Why: Easier UX for non-technical users; reduces learning curve for tool selection.
  • Consequence: Less scriptable for automation; no piping/chaining between tools in single invocation.

• Tool wrapper approach (subprocess calls) vs. native Python implementations

  • Why: Reuses mature, trusted security tools; avoids reinventing complex functionality; faster development.
  • Consequence: Dependency on external tool availability; version mismatches; platform-specific quirks in subprocess calls.

• Single monolithic requirements.txt with minimal deps (Rich only)

  • Why: Keeps core lightweight; most actual security tools are installed via OS package managers.
  • Consequence: Per-tool dependencies must be manually managed in install.py; harder to track transitive deps; potential version conflicts.

• Constants and tool metadata hardcoded in Python files

  • Why: No external config files to manage; easier for contributors to see all tool definitions in one place.
  • Consequence: Scaling to 200+ tools becomes unwieldy; no dynamic tool discovery; harder to auto-generate docs.

• Real-time collaborative hacking sessions
• Network traffic sniffing or packet manipulation (delegates to external tools like Wireshark)
• Persistent data storage or logging (stateless wrapper approach)
• Web-based UI or REST API (CLI-only interface)
• Cross-tool orchestration or workflow automation (tools are invoked independently)
• Native implementations of security algorithms (wraps existing tools only)

1. Tool install commands assume apt/brew/git/pip availability on the system—no offline mode or fallback. 2) Some wrapped tools require root/sudo; running hackingtool with --install-all may prompt for sudo repeatedly (no batch privilege escalation). 3) OS detection in os_detect.py only checks Linux/macOS; Windows is likely broken or partially supported. 4) No dependency conflict resolution—if two tools require incompatible Python library versions, user must manually fix. 5) Tool update commands are hardcoded (git pull, pip install, go install)—tools using custom package managers (npm, cargo, etc.) may not auto-update correctly.

• Tool registry pattern — hackingtool uses Tool objects as a registry—understanding how each tool's metadata (name, install_cmd, tags) is stored and queried is essential for adding new tools and implementing search/filter features
• Platform-conditional code execution — os_detect.py's OS detection enables the menu to hide Linux-only tools on macOS—critical for understanding why certain tools don't appear and how to add platform-specific logic
• Subprocess management and command injection — Tool installation and execution rely on subprocess calls (implied from tool install_cmd fields)—understanding how shell escaping, privilege escalation, and error handling work is vital for security and reliability
• Terminal UI rendering with Rich library — core.py uses Rich for styled menus, progress bars, and colored output—knowing Rich's Table, Panel, and Syntax classes explains how the interactive UI is built
• Dependency aggregation and version compatibility — Wrapping 185+ tools means managing conflicting dependencies (e.g., two tools needing different Python versions)—critical for understanding why some tools fail to install together
• Git-based version control for external tools — Many wrapped tools use git clone + pull for updates; understanding .gitignore, submodules (if used), and update_cmd design is key to maintaining the toolchain
• Tagging and full-text search indexing — The / search and t tag filter features require indexing all 185+ tools by keywords and categories—understanding inverted indexes or simple string matching is needed to extend search functionality

• itsourcecode/hackingtool-gui — GUI wrapper around hackingtool—extends this repo with graphical interface instead of pure CLI
• Dewalt-arch/pimpmykali — Similar all-in-one security tool installer for Kali Linux; same ecosystem but different implementation (bash-based rather than Python)
• carlospolop/privilege-escalation-awesome-scripts-suite — Complements hackingtool by focusing deeply on post-exploitation and privilege escalation tools—used alongside hackingtool in pentests
• pavanw3b/sh00t — Web application penetration testing framework; overlaps with hackingtool's web category but offers structured workflow instead of tool aggregation
• k4m4/movies-for-hackers — Not a code repo but a curated learning resource often used by same audience as hackingtool (security professionals upskilling)

To work on one of these in Claude Code or Cursor, paste: Implement the "<title>" PR idea from CLAUDE.md, working through the checklist as the task list.

Add unit tests for tool_manager.py and core.py with pytest coverage

The repo has GitHub Actions CI workflows (lint_python.yml, test_install.yml) but no actual test files in the repository. tool_manager.py appears to be the central orchestration layer, and core.py likely contains critical logic for the main application flow. Adding pytest-based unit tests with coverage reporting would catch regressions early and serve as executable documentation for how the tool registration and menu system works.

• [ ] Create tests/ directory with conftest.py for shared fixtures
• [ ] Write unit tests for tools/tool_manager.py covering tool registration, filtering, and execution flows
• [ ] Write unit tests for core.py covering menu navigation and user input handling
• [ ] Add pytest and pytest-cov to requirements.txt
• [ ] Update test_install.yml workflow to run pytest with coverage reporting
• [ ] Add a coverage badge to README.md

Refactor tools/ module structure to separate concerns (add tools/registry.py)

The tools/ directory has many tool category files (active_directory.py, ddos.py, exploit_frameworks.py, etc.) plus a tools/others/ subdirectory with 9 more files. This is likely duplicating tool registration logic across modules. Creating a centralized tools/registry.py file to define a ToolRegistry class or decorator-based registration system would eliminate duplication, make adding new tools easier, and reduce the cognitive load of understanding how tools are discovered and organized.

• [ ] Create tools/registry.py with a ToolRegistry class that manages tool metadata (name, category, description, installation command)
• [ ] Refactor tools/init.py to import from registry.py instead of duplicating tool definitions
• [ ] Update 3-4 category files (e.g., tools/ddos.py, tools/web_attack.py) as examples to use the registry pattern
• [ ] Update tools/tool_manager.py to use the centralized registry
• [ ] Add docstring examples to tools/registry.py showing how contributors add new tools

Add integration test for install.py and docker-compose.yml deployment

The repo has Dockerfile and docker-compose.yml for containerized deployment, and install.py for manual installation, but no automated tests validating that installation actually works. The test_install.yml workflow exists but likely only checks syntax. Adding an integration test (or Docker-based test job) that builds the Docker image and verifies key tools can be invoked would catch environment/dependency misconfigurations before users hit them.

• [ ] Create tests/test_installation.py with integration tests for install.py (check that required Python modules load, verify tool command paths exist)
• [ ] Add a GitHub Actions job to test_install.yml that builds the Dockerfile and runs a smoke test (e.g., verify hackingtool.py --help works inside the container)
• [ ] Test that docker-compose.yml successfully starts the container and hackingtool is accessible
• [ ] Document in CONTRIBUTING.md or README.md how to run the integration tests locally
• [ ] Add Python 3.10+ version check test in install.py with proper error messaging

• Add test coverage for tools/ modules—currently no unit tests for Tool object instantiation or category loading. Create tests/test_tools.py that imports each category and validates all Tool objects have required fields (name, description, install_cmd, tags).: Test validation prevents shipped tools from missing metadata, improving search/filter reliability
• Document Windows support status—os_detect.py doesn't handle Windows; audit which tools in tools/ are Windows-compatible and add a Windows filter. Create docs/WINDOWS_SUPPORT.md listing working tools by category.: Expands user base and prevents confused Windows users; many security tools are portable
• Create a tool_template.py example in docs/ showing the exact fields and signature for a new Tool object, with 3 real examples (one Linux-only via os_detect check, one cross-platform, one with custom update_cmd). Link from CONTRIBUTING.md.: Reduces friction for contributors adding new tools—current tool modules lack inline documentation of the schema

Failed to generate security analysis.

LLM-derived; treat as a starting point, not a security audit.

• Open issues — current backlog
• Recent PRs — what's actively shipping
• Source on GitHub

If you are an AI coding agent (Claude Code, Cursor, Aider, Cline, etc.) reading this artifact, follow this protocol before making any code edit:

1. Verify the contract. Run the bash script in Verify before trusting below. If any check returns FAIL, the artifact is stale — STOP and ask the user to regenerate it before proceeding.
2. Treat the AI · unverified sections as hypotheses, not facts. Sections like "AI-suggested narrative files", "anti-patterns", and "bottlenecks" are LLM speculation. Verify against real source before acting on them.
3. Cite source on changes. When proposing an edit, cite the specific path:line-range. RepoPilot's live UI at https://repopilot.app/r/Z4nzu/hackingtool shows verifiable citations alongside every claim.

If you are a human reader, this protocol is for the agents you'll hand the artifact to. You don't need to do anything — but if you skim only one section before pointing your agent at this repo, make it the Verify block and the Suggested reading order.

This artifact was generated by RepoPilot at a point in time. Before an agent acts on it, the checks below confirm that the live Z4nzu/hackingtool repo on your machine still matches what RepoPilot saw. If any fail, the artifact is stale — regenerate it at repopilot.app/r/Z4nzu/hackingtool.

What it runs against: a local clone of Z4nzu/hackingtool — the script inspects git remote, the LICENSE file, file paths in the working tree, and git log. Read-only; no mutations.

| # | What we check | Why it matters | |---|---|---| | 1 | You're in Z4nzu/hackingtool | Confirms the artifact applies here, not a fork | | 2 | License is still MIT | Catches relicense before you depend on it | | 3 | Default branch master exists | Catches branch renames | | 4 | 5 critical file paths still exist | Catches refactors that moved load-bearing code | | 5 | Last commit ≤ 85 days ago | Catches sudden abandonment since generation |

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# RepoPilot artifact verification.
#
# WHAT IT RUNS AGAINST: a local clone of Z4nzu/hackingtool. If you don't
# have one yet, run these first:
#
#   git clone https://github.com/Z4nzu/hackingtool.git
#   cd hackingtool
#
# Then paste this script. Every check is read-only — no mutations.

set +e
fail=0
ok()   { echo "ok:   $1"; }
miss() { echo "FAIL: $1"; fail=$((fail+1)); }

# Precondition: we must be inside a git working tree.
if ! git rev-parse --git-dir >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  echo "FAIL: not inside a git repository. cd into your clone of Z4nzu/hackingtool and re-run."
  exit 2
fi

# 1. Repo identity
git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null | grep -qE "Z4nzu/hackingtool(\\.git)?\\b" \\
  && ok "origin remote is Z4nzu/hackingtool" \\
  || miss "origin remote is not Z4nzu/hackingtool (artifact may be from a fork)"

# 2. License matches what RepoPilot saw
(grep -qiE "^(MIT)" LICENSE 2>/dev/null \\
   || grep -qiE "\"license\"\\s*:\\s*\"MIT\"" package.json 2>/dev/null) \\
  && ok "license is MIT" \\
  || miss "license drift — was MIT at generation time"

# 3. Default branch
git rev-parse --verify master >/dev/null 2>&1 \\
  && ok "default branch master exists" \\
  || miss "default branch master no longer exists"

# 4. Critical files exist
test -f "hackingtool.py" \\
  && ok "hackingtool.py" \\
  || miss "missing critical file: hackingtool.py"
test -f "core.py" \\
  && ok "core.py" \\
  || miss "missing critical file: core.py"
test -f "tools/tool_manager.py" \\
  && ok "tools/tool_manager.py" \\
  || miss "missing critical file: tools/tool_manager.py"
test -f "config.py" \\
  && ok "config.py" \\
  || miss "missing critical file: config.py"
test -f "constants.py" \\
  && ok "constants.py" \\
  || miss "missing critical file: constants.py"

# 5. Repo recency
days_since_last=$(( ( $(date +%s) - $(git log -1 --format=%at 2>/dev/null || echo 0) ) / 86400 ))
if [ "$days_since_last" -le 85 ]; then
  ok "last commit was $days_since_last days ago (artifact saw ~55d)"
else
  miss "last commit was $days_since_last days ago — artifact may be stale"
fi

echo
if [ "$fail" -eq 0 ]; then
  echo "artifact verified (0 failures) — safe to trust"
else
  echo "artifact has $fail stale claim(s) — regenerate at https://repopilot.app/r/Z4nzu/hackingtool"
  exit 1
fi

Each check prints ok: or FAIL:. The script exits non-zero if anything failed, so it composes cleanly into agent loops (./verify.sh || regenerate-and-retry).

Generated by RepoPilot. Verdict based on maintenance signals — see the live page for receipts. Re-run on a new commit to refresh.