Unfortunately, I will say no. Most blackbox and greybox testing are very manual. The reason is because we know what we are testing. Context matter. Computers don't understand /signup and /register are common page for user account registration. Automation tools thus far are very primitive. Let's imagine a user registration process. It seems simple, but really not scalable.

What can you write? Some examples:

* check HTTP security headers

* check page and requests are made over HTTPS

* try to verify CSRF token is working

* try to fuzz input fields (for all kinds of injection attacks)

First two automation are pretty simple to implement. CSRF validation automation is quite common and also not terribly hard to implement (if you use commonly used web framework the implementation should be fairly standard). But testing injection? There's reflected and there's stored. Stored can be quite tough. Supposed you finish your registration successfully, you either see stored XSS immediately from within your profile page, or you will see the stored XSS somewhere on the web site. In the latter case, you are waiting. Where do you go? You can pick a few hot spots (forum page, profile page, email, etc), but website A is different from website B, how can you write a tool that's scalable? Effectively, you are now writing a tool specifically for one website.

Now move on something more interesting. A lot of the vulnerabilities depend on state. By state I mean not only session, but the path of how the user gets to that page. Going back to stored XSS, yes, the input is in the database, but the user may only see this XSS if and only if he was on this page performing this action.

IMO, recording and learning how a real human would use the website is one of the ways to automate and to attack a website because your goal is to generate large set of test cases. If you are lucky you can hit a jackpot and reproduce a real vulnerability that someone is actually using against you. Change the input, replay the whole scenario, and repeat the cycle. Want to be smarter, not dumb fuzzer? Add some rules. Another way to replay is by leveraging your tests. For example, let say my API can create objects, well, first I need to register myself, then I need to authenticate myself, and I need to fill in a form with my authorization token or whatever. My tests would be making multiple API calls. What if now I do a permutation? Add/remove/modify one step at a time? Swap the steps around? Privilege escalation, maybe? Anything? Using your functional tests you can now generate new test cases and it is very possible you will find real vulnerability that way.

There are other complications. Take gmail.com. The source is obfuscated and minified. Try to make sense of the source is a challenge. DOM can change, so now you have to update your script. The incredible Gmail.js made this easier, but still require author to maintain the ever-changing DOM.

Really, the many little steps you take to perform penetration test can be automated. But there are too many steps and the number of states could overwhelm. Writing generic tool is very much a hard problem. In a way, I guess you can, creating an effective, kind of smart penetration automation software is like creating a model for determining which Spotify's Discovery recommendation algorithm is better. Very data driven and evolutionary-based.