bugbash
Skill28 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Systematically explore and test any software project (CLI, API, Backend, Library, etc.) to find bugs, usability issues, and edge cases. Produces a structured report with full reproduction evidence (exact commands, inputs, logs, and tracebacks) for every issue.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- av/harborword for word, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- av/harbor★ 3.3k100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-integration-testingSkill
- annealSkill
- article-factorySkill
- autoresearchSkill
- boost-modulesSkill
- bughuntSkill
- catalog-deslopSkill
- disciplineSkill
- factual-communicationSkill
- ideateSkill
- improve-skillSkill
- make-videoSkill
- mosaic-writingSkill
- preact-buildless-frontendSkill
- pull-llamacpp-modelSkill
- run-llmsSkill
- sandcastleSkill
- superclaudeSkill
- timeboxed-iteratingSkill
- timeframe-researchSkill
- tinygradSkill
- turso-dbSkill
- use-coding-agentsSkill
- workgraphSkill
- workmachineSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 36
Create a report.md in the output directory and fill in the header fields.
- Very specific: line 42
If the software needs to be built or started (e.g., npm run build, docker-compose up, cargo build), do that now.
- Very specific: line 48
For CLIs: Run {TARGET} --help, list subcommands, check environment variable configurations.
- Distinctive: line 58
Happy Paths: Test the primary use cases.
- Distinctive: line 60
Missing Context: Run commands without required environment variables, missing config files, or unauthenticated API calls.
- Distinctive: line 68
Document issues *as you find them*.
- Distinctive: line 89
Stop any background processes (e.g., API servers) started during initialization.
- Very specific: line 94
Repro is everything: Every issue needs proof. Provide the exact curl command, CLI invocation, or script used to trigger the bug.
- Distinctive: line 95
Verify reproducibility: Before documenting an issue, verify it is reproducible with at least one retry.
≈ “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
Bugbash (General Software)
Systematically explore a software project, find issues, and produce a report with full reproduction evidence for every finding. This skill applies to CLIs, APIs, Backends, Libraries, and other non-web interfaces.
Setup
Identify the Target (e.g., a CLI binary, an API base URL, a Python package).
| Parameter | Default | Example override |
| Target | (required) | ./my-cli, http://localhost:8080, import mylib |
| Output directory | /tmp/dogfood-output/ | Output directory: ./qa-reports |
| Scope | Full project | Focus on the auth middleware |
Workflow
1. Initialize Set up output dirs, report file, build/start the software
2. Orient Discover surface area (help menus, API schemas, exported functions)
3. Explore Systematically test features, inputs, and edge cases
4. Document Record exact inputs, outputs, and logs for each issue
5. Wrap up Update summary counts, finalize report1. Initialize
mkdir -p {OUTPUT_DIR}/logs {OUTPUT_DIR}/evidenceCreate a report.md in the output directory and fill in the header fields. Include:
- Target
- Date
- Environment Details (OS, language version)
- Summary Counts (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
If the software needs to be built or started (e.g., npm run build, docker-compose up, cargo build), do that now. Keep track of the startup logs and run servers in the background if necessary (e.g., using & and redirecting output).
2. Orient
Map out the surface area of the software before testing.
- For CLIs: Run
{TARGET} --help, list subcommands, check environment variable configurations. - For APIs: Fetch OpenAPI/Swagger specs, list route definitions in code, or run a schema discovery tool.
- For Libraries: Inspect exported modules, classes, and public methods.
Save this initial mapping to {OUTPUT_DIR}/surface-area.txt.
3. Explore
Work through the surface area systematically.
- Happy Paths: Test the primary use cases. Does it do what it claims to do?
- Invalid Inputs: Pass wrong types, extremely large strings, negative numbers, malformed JSON.
- Missing Context: Run commands without required environment variables, missing config files, or unauthenticated API calls.
- Boundary Conditions: File not found, permission denied, port already in use.
At each step: Capture standard output, standard error, exit codes, and HTTP status codes.
4. Document Issues (Repro-First)
Document issues as you find them. Do not wait until the end. Every issue must be reproducible by a human reading the report.
For each issue, capture:
- Description: What is the bug or UX issue?
- Severity: Critical (crash/data loss), High (broken core feature), Medium (broken edge case), Low (UX issue/typo).
- Repro Steps: Exact commands run, API requests made (e.g.,
curlcommands), or code executed. - Expected vs Actual Behavior: What should have happened vs what actually happened.
- Evidence:
- Stdout/Stderr output
- Stack traces or panic messages
- Log file snippets
- Exit codes
Save verbose evidence (like full crash dumps or multi-megabyte log files) to {OUTPUT_DIR}/evidence/issue-{NNN}.txt and reference it in the report. For short errors, embed them directly in the report using markdown code blocks.
5. Wrap Up
Aim to find 5-10 well-documented issues. Depth of evidence matters more than total count — 5 issues with full repros beat 20 with vague descriptions.
After exploring:
- Re-read the report and update the summary severity counts so they match the actual issues. Every issue block must be reflected in the totals.
- Stop any background processes (e.g., API servers) started during initialization.
- Tell the user the report is ready and summarize findings: total issues, breakdown by severity, and the most critical items.
Guidance
- Repro is everything. Every issue needs proof. Provide the exact
curlcommand, CLI invocation, or script used to trigger the bug. A reader should be able to copy-paste the commands to see the exact same failure. - Verify reproducibility. Before documenting an issue, verify it is reproducible with at least one retry. If it's flaky, note that and try to identify the conditions.
- Capture the environment state. Often bugs depend on the environment (files present, variables set). Note
pwd, env vars, or local files if they are part of the repro. - Write findings incrementally. Append each issue to the report as you discover it. If the session is interrupted, findings are preserved. Never batch all issues for the end.
- Don't just look for crashes. Usability matters. Confusing error messages, undocumented required flags, and sluggish performance are all valid issues.
- Test like a user, not a robot. Try common workflows end-to-end. Combine flags or API calls in ways a real user would, passing the output of one command as input to the next.
- Check the exit codes and status codes. A CLI returning
0on failure, or an API returning200 OKfor an error payload, is a bug.echo $?orcurl -w "%{http_code}"are your friends.
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.

