A higher-capacity security engineering model from BugTraceAI, tuned for deeper analysis, professional reporting, exploit-chain review, and long-context investigation across agentic web pentesting workflows.
Model Overview
Field
Value
Organization
BugTraceAI
Framework
BugTraceAI agentic web pentesting framework
Variant
BugTraceAI-CORE-Pro
Parameter Scale
12B
Architecture
Mistral Nemo
Intended Domain
Application security and authorized security research
Primary Delivery Format
GGUF
Intended Use
End-to-end analysis of web application findings in authorized environments.
Drafting professional vulnerability reports and remediation guidance.
Reasoning over larger technical contexts such as logs, source code, and findings bundles.
Out-of-Scope Use
Autonomous offensive operation against unauthorized targets.
Replacing human validation for severity, exploitability, or business impact.
Guaranteeing exploit reliability across target-specific environments.
Training Data Summary
This model was tuned for security engineering workflows using a curated mix of public, security-focused material. The training mix is described at a high level below:
Public vulnerability writeups and disclosed security reports used to improve structure, reasoning, and reporting quality.
Security methodology material used to improve triage, reproduction planning, and remediation-oriented analysis.
Domain examples covering common web application security patterns, defensive controls, and scanner-style findings.
The card intentionally describes the data at a summary level. It should not be read as a guarantee of exact coverage for any individual product, CVE, target stack, or technique.
Prompting Guidance
Recommended prompting style:
State the environment and authorization context clearly.
Provide concrete evidence: request, response, stack details, logs, code snippets, or scan output.
Ask for one task at a time: triage, reproduction planning, impact analysis, remediation, or reporting.
Example tasks that fit this model:
Summarize why this finding is likely valid and what evidence is missing.
Rewrite this scanner output into a concise engineering ticket.
Draft remediation steps for this authorization bug or input validation issue.
Ollama Example
dockerfile
1FROM hf.co/BugTraceAI/BugTraceAI-CORE-Pro23SYSTEM """
4You are BugTraceAI-CORE-Pro, a security engineering assistant for authorized testing,
5triage, and remediation support. Prefer precise technical analysis, state assumptions,
6and separate confirmed evidence from hypotheses.
7"""
89PARAMETER temperature 0.1
10PARAMETER top_p 0.9
Create the local model with:
ollama create bugtrace-pro -f Modelfile
Strengths
Better long-context reasoning and report quality than the Fast variant.
More suitable for multi-step analysis and vulnerability writeups.
Stronger at connecting findings, evidence, and remediation paths.
Limitations
Higher latency and resource requirements than the Fast model.
Still requires human review for high-risk decisions and disclosure quality.
Performance depends on prompt quality and the evidence provided.
Evaluation Status
This release is currently documented with qualitative positioning rather than a public benchmark suite. If you rely on the model for production workflows, validate it against your own prompt set, evidence format, and report quality bar.
Safety and Responsible Use
This model is intended for authorized security work, defensive research, education, and engineering support. Users are responsible for ensuring legal authorization, validating outputs, and applying human review before acting on model-generated analysis.
