bug-pipeline
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the work is a bug — anything broken, silently wrong, missing, or duplicated. Drives the fix from investigation through a production PR targeting the default branch (origin/main), with a full review gate before merge.
In this repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- feature-pipelineSkill
- graphify-teamSkill
- team-blackboardSkill
- team-orchestraSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
(Optional) Pull related context: If a recording, transcript, or ticket describes the repro, pull it in.
- Distinctive: line 20
Deploy + monitor: After merge, watch the deploy and the error stream for the affected path.
- Very specific: line 21
Close out: Update TEAM-BOARD.md with the outcome, link the PR, and record the root cause as a finding.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Bug pipeline → production
A bug is anything that was broken, silently wrong, producing missing data, or producing duplicate data. Bugs are urgent and target production directly: the PR base is origin/main, not a staging branch. A human merges to main — the agent stops at PR-open.
Work the 10 steps in order. Do not skip ahead.
- Investigate. Pull recent server/app logs for the failing path. Map the affected area with a knowledge-graph tool (god-nodes, communities, blast-radius) and index + RAG-search the relevant files so you understand the call graph before touching code. Cite what you find.
- Root-cause, not symptom. Decide whether this is a local defect or an architectural problem. Write the one-sentence root cause. If it's architectural, say so in the plan — don't paper over it.
- (Optional) Pull related context. If a recording, transcript, or ticket describes the repro, pull it in. Use it to confirm expected vs actual behavior.
- PLAN — ASK THE USER. Enter plan mode. Present the root cause and the proposed fix. Do not implement until the user approves the plan.
- Branch + code. Branch off
origin/main(e.g.<your-name>-<slug>). Keep functions < 50 lines, wrap async in try/catch, validate input. Typecheck and build must be clean before you proceed. - FULL review gate. Run all three: your code-review bot, your diff-analysis tool, and your security-review tool against the branch diff. Paste every report inline in the PR body (not just links). Block the merge on any HIGH-severity finding, any auth / RLS / cross-tenant finding (regardless of severity), or any finding that touches user-facing data correctness (silently missing, miscounted, truncated, mislabelled, or wrong-record data). Show the user each blocking finding with file:line, propose a fix, push it to the same branch so the gate re-runs in place — never recreate the PR.
- Skip the gate only for: docs-only diffs, pure config/CI YAML with no logic, or reverts of a commit on the same branch.
- QA with evidence. Reproduce the original bug, apply the fix, and capture proof it's gone (logs, curl output, screenshot, or recording). Attach the evidence to the PR.
- Open the PR (base
main) then STOP. Target the default branch. Include a## Test Plansection and the three inlined gate reports. A human merges tomain— the agent does not. - Deploy + monitor. After merge, watch the deploy and the error stream for the affected path. Confirm the fix is live and nothing regressed.
- Close out. Update
TEAM-BOARD.mdwith the outcome, link the PR, and record the root cause as a finding. If the session was heavy, write a handoff for the next session.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

