Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Executes authorized phishing simulation campaigns to assess an organization's susceptibility to email-based social engineering attacks. The tester designs realistic phishing scenarios, builds credential harvesting infrastructure, sends targeted phishing emails, and tracks open rates, click-through rates, and credential submission rates to measure human security awareness. Activates for requests involving phishing simulation, social engineering assessment, email security testing, or security awareness measurement.
.claude/skills/executing-phishing-simulation-campaign/SKILL.md| Model | Eval pass | Runs |
|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | — | 2 |
| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-03 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-20 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-15 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
Do not use without explicit written authorization from the organization's leadership, for actual credential theft beyond the authorized scope, for targeting individuals personally rather than professionally, or for sending phishing emails that could cause psychological harm or legal liability.
Design realistic phishing scenarios based on threats relevant to the target organization:
Configure the phishing infrastructure:
target-corp.com, targetcorp-portal.com, targetsupport.netLaunch the phishing campaign:
Process captured credentials to demonstrate impact (if authorized):
Analyze campaign results and produce the assessment report:
| Term | Definition | |------|------------| | Pretext | The fabricated scenario and social context used to persuade the target to take a desired action such as clicking a link or entering credentials | | Credential Harvesting | Collecting usernames and passwords through fake login pages that mimic legitimate services | | GoPhish | Open-source phishing simulation platform that manages email templates, landing pages, target groups, and campaign tracking | | Spear Phishing | Targeted phishing directed at specific individuals using personalized information gathered through reconnaissance | | Typosquatting | Registering domains that are visually similar to legitimate domains through character substitution, addition, or omission | | Security Awareness | Training programs designed to educate employees about social engineering threats and proper reporting procedures | | DMARC | Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance; email authentication protocol that prevents unauthorized use of a domain for sending email |
Context: A 2,000-employee company has never conducted a phishing simulation. The CISO wants to establish a baseline susceptibility rate before deploying a new security awareness training program. The campaign should test all employees using a realistic but not overly sophisticated pretext.
Approach:
m365-targetcorp.com, set up GoPhish, and build a landing page cloning the Microsoft 365 login portalPitfalls:
## Phishing Simulation Campaign Report
**Campaign Name**: Q4 2025 Baseline Phishing Assessment
**Pretext**: Microsoft 365 Password Expiration Notice
**Campaign Duration**: November 15-18, 2025
**Target Population**: 2,000 employees (all departments)
### Campaign Metrics
| Metric | Count | Rate |
|--------|-------|------|
| Emails Sent | 2,000 | 100% |
| Emails Delivered | 1,847 | 92.4% |
| Emails Opened | 1,243 | 67.3% |
| Links Clicked | 487 | 26.4% |
| Credentials Submitted | 312 | 16.9% |
| Reported to IT | 23 | 1.2% |
### Department Breakdown
| Department | Employees | Clicked | Submitted | Reported |
|------------|-----------|---------|-----------|----------|
| Finance | 120 | 38.3% | 28.3% | 0.8% |
| Marketing | 85 | 35.3% | 24.7% | 1.2% |
| Engineering| 300 | 15.0% | 8.3% | 3.7% |
| IT | 45 | 8.9% | 4.4% | 11.1% |
### Key Findings
1. Baseline credential submission rate of 16.9% exceeds industry average (12%)
2. Report rate of 1.2% indicates employees are not trained to report suspicious emails
3. Finance department is the highest-risk group with 28.3% credential submission rate
4. Email security gateway did not flag the phishing domain despite being registered 48 hours prior
### Recommendations
1. Deploy mandatory security awareness training with emphasis on phishing identification
2. Install a phishing report button in email clients and train all employees on its use
3. Implement DMARC enforcement (p=reject) and enhanced email filtering rules
4. Conduct targeted training for Finance and Marketing departments
5. Schedule quarterly phishing simulations to track improvement| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +9 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.