Detect WebFinger Endpoint

WebFinger (RFC 7033) is a protocol that allows discovery of information about people or resources using a standard URL pattern: /.well-known/webfinger. It is commonly used by ActivityPub implementations (Mastodon, etc.) and federated identity systems.

Step 1 — Fast Signal Search

Search the codebase for the string webfinger (case-insensitive) across all source files. This single search catches the vast majority of implementations.

Search query: webfinger
Case: insensitive
Scope: all source files (exclude: node_modules, vendor, .git, dist, build)

If no matches are found, proceed to Step 2 (fallback search). If matches are found, proceed to Step 3 (classify results).

Step 2 — Fallback Search (if Step 1 found nothing)

Some implementations register WebFinger indirectly under a generic well-known handler. Search for:

• /.well-known/ (route registration)
• well_known (snake_case variant common in Python/Ruby)
• jrd+json (the WebFinger response MIME type — very specific signal)
• acct: (the URI scheme WebFinger uses for user lookups)

If any of these match, include the files in Step 3 classification. If still nothing — report: WebFinger not detected.

Step 3 — Classify Each Match

For each file containing a match, determine which category it falls into:

Category A — Implementation (confirmed)

The file contains executable code that:

• Registers a route or handler at /.well-known/webfinger
• Processes a resource query parameter
• Returns a JSON response (JRD format) with a subject field

Category B — Library/Framework delegation

The file imports or references a WebFinger library (e.g. node-webfinger, ostatus, activitypub, webfinger-rack, go-webfinger) without directly defining the handler. The endpoint likely exists but is provided by the dependency.

Category C — Reference only (not an implementation)

The match appears in:

• Comments or documentation strings
• Test fixtures or mock data
• Configuration files referencing an external WebFinger server
• README or markdown files

Category D — Ambiguous

The file handles /.well-known/ generically and may or may not route WebFinger requests. Read the surrounding logic to determine.

Step 4 — Check for Framework-Specific Patterns

If the codebase language/framework is identifiable, also look for these common patterns:

Step 5 — Report Results

Provide a clear summary with:

1. Verdict: WebFinger detected / Not detected / Possibly delegated to library
2. Evidence: List the specific files and line numbers (if available) that contain the implementation
3. Implementation style: Direct route handler / Library delegation / Framework built-in
4. Completeness notes (if applicable): e.g. "Handler found but no rel parameter filtering detected" or "Missing application/jrd+json content type header"
5. Caveats: e.g. "WebFinger may be handled upstream by a reverse proxy (nginx/caddy) and never reach the application code"

What a Complete WebFinger Implementation Looks Like

For reference, a complete implementation handles:

• Route: GET /.well-known/webfinger
• Required query param: resource (e.g. acct:[email protected])
• Optional query param: rel (filters which link types to return)
• Response Content-Type: application/jrd+json
• Response body: JSON with at minimum a subject field, typically also links and/or aliases
• HTTP 404 if the resource is not found
• HTTP 400 if the resource param is missing