> Markdown version of [/jobs/ext/4604389-cybersecurity-rl-environment-reviewer-offensive-appsec](https://www.wearedevelopers.com/jobs/ext/4604389-cybersecurity-rl-environment-reviewer-offensive-appsec). Every page supports `.md` or `Accept: text/markdown`. Links point to the HTML versions so they work for humans too. Agent guide: [/agents.md](https://www.wearedevelopers.com/agents.md).

---

# Cybersecurity RL Environment Reviewer - Offensive & AppSec

- **Company:** IDL CONCEPTS, LLC
- **Location:** United States (Remote available)
- **Salary:** $135,200.0 - $208,000.0
- **Contract:** Permanent contract
- **Skills:** Java (Programming Language), Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), Artificial Intelligence, Software System Penetration Testing, C++ (Programming Language), Cyber Security, Internet Security, Python (Programming Language), SQL Injection, Web Applications, Rust (Programming Language), Software Security, Backend, GWAPT, Golang
- **Published:** November 6, 2026
- **Apply:** https://www.careerbuilder.com/job-details/cybersecurity-rl-environment-reviewer-offensive-appsec--8497da0f-3250-468e-be02-7efa1705d76e

## About the Role

Internet Security, Internet Security, Testing, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Quality Assurance, Memory Hardware, Internet Application, Application Programming Interface (API), Penetration Testing, Applications Security, * Hands-on experience finding and validating real vulnerabilities in web applications, APIs, or backend services, through bug bounty, penetration testing, red teaming, or AppSec engineering.

 * Comfortable reading unfamiliar code (any of Python, JS/TS, Java, Go, C/C++, Rust) well enough to trace a vulnerable data path, even without being a professional software engineer in that language.
 * Able to clearly explain, in writing, why a vulnerability is or isn't real and reachable - you'll be judged on your justifications, not just your verdicts.
 * Reliable and self-directed, comfortable working async with limited day-to-day oversight.

Nice to Have

 * An active or past bug bounty track record (HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Synack, Intigriti) - leaderboard ranking, hall-of-fame mentions, or CVE credits are all useful signal.
 * CTF experience (web or pwn categories), especially with a public CTFtime team ranking.
 * A security certification such as OSCP, OSWE, OSCE, eJPT, eCPPT, or GWAPT.
 * Prior experience specifically evaluating or grading other people's security findings (triage, review, or mentorship work)., * $65-$100/hour - solid, demonstrable offensive-security experience (consistent bug bounty activity, 1+ years in an AppSec/pentest role, or a relevant certification) and the ability to independently verify straightforward discovery and patching tasks.
 * $125-$250/hour - a recognized track record (top-tier bug bounty leaderboard placement, live-hacking-event invitations, advanced certifications such as OSWE/OSCE, or 5+ years of specialized offensive-security work), able to handle ambiguous or disputed calls and the hardest exploit-chaining tasks.

Exceptional, elite-tier reviewers (e.g., top-50 global bug bounty hunters) may be engaged above this range case-by-case for our highest-difficulty environments.

## Description

We're building a dedicated bench of cybersecurity reviewers to QA our offensive-security and application-security RL environments: vulnerability-discovery tasks, vulnerability-patching tasks, and end-to-end exploit-construction tasks. You'll work through environments we've already built - not build new ones - and tell us whether they're fair, correct, and ready to ship.

This is part-time, flexible-hours part-time work. Most experts work a handful of hours per week; we'll scope specific weekly workload with you directly.

What You'll Do

 * Review a codebase and a described vulnerability (e.g., SQLi, IDOR, SSRF, insecure deserialization, a memory-safety bug) and confirm it's real, reachable, and findable by a skilled engineer using only the context provided - no outside information required.
 * For patching tasks, confirm the grading actually fails while the exploit still works and passes only once it's genuinely fixed - not just pattern-matching a diff.
 * For exploit-construction tasks, trace or attempt the intended exploit path yourself to confirm it's achievable within the given environment and constraints.
 * Flag inconsistent files, missing context, unclear requirements, or anything that would make the task unsolvable or ambiguous for a model attempting it cold.
 * Write a short, clear justification for every accept/reject/flag decision - this matters as much as the decision itself.