bug-fix
Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoISCView on GitHub
Lightweight entry point for fixing bugs with full traceability. Takes a bug report, links to the relevant FRD, generates a failing test, fixes the code, and ships. Tracked as a micro-increment. Use when fixing bugs with test-first methodology and spec2cloud pipeline traceability.
25 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- paureis/pau-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- eugenelim/agent-ready-repotheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- JosefGisis/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- callmeradical/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- GangJaeYu/harness_loop_full_koreantheir own version, first seen Oct 29, 2026
- phanijapps/memextheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use security-checklists, work-loop and 6 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
eugenelimSkillsecurity-checklists
Progressive-disclosure security-depth modules for the security-reviewer. Holds ten boundary-keyed checklists (access-control, authn-session, injection, path-and-file, secrets-and-crypto, outbound-ssrf, supply-chain, config-misconfig, exceptional-conditions, llm-agent) as references/, each anchored on a current standard (OWASP Top 10:2025, ASVS 5.0, API Security Top 10:2023, Proactive Controls 2024, CWE Top 25, OWASP LLM Top 10:2025). The work-loop's orchestrator loads only the boundary-matching modules and inlines them into the security-reviewer's brief; the subagent never self-discovers this skill. Not a reviewer prompt itself — it is the depth library the reviewer reasons from.
Also in 3 projects that use this
eugenelimSkillwork-loop
Use this skill whenever you're implementing a non-trivial change — a feature, a multi-file bug fix, a refactor, a migration, a framework or dependency upgrade, a schema or API change, performance work, an infrastructure or build-system edit, or anything spec-driven. It enforces the project's plan → execute → self-review → fix loop with mechanical gates (lint, typecheck, tests) and adversarial review. Default to this skill for any task larger than a one-line edit.
Also in 3 projects that use this
DonTiziSkillnew-feature
Plan new features/integrations following SOLID principles. Analyzes codebase architecture, researches official documentation and best practices, designs extensible solution, and creates comprehensive GitHub issue with implementation blueprint.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SvampenSkillinit-project
Generates a tailored .claude/project-config.md for the current project. Asks about project type, quality check commands, documentation paths, insight tags, and review strictness.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GitHubSkillrefactor
Surgical code refactoring to improve maintainability without changing behavior. Covers extracting functions, renaming variables, breaking down god functions, improving type safety, eliminating code smells, and applying design patterns. Less drastic than repo-rebuilder; use for gradual improvements.
Also in 5 projects that use this
GoogleSkillgrilling
Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +1 more from eugenelim
Other versions25 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- EmeaAppGbb/spec2cloud★ 100100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 24
- techygarg/lattice★ 209same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow★ 192same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harness★ 192same name
- nwiizo/claudelytics★ 88same name
- eugenelim/agent-ready-repo★ 28same name
- Fadi88/one-man-startup★ 16same name
- eugenelim/llm-wiki-kit★ 12same name
- mae616/ai-template★ 9same name
- ramboz/jig★ 7same name
- GangJaeYu/harness_loop_full_korean★ 4same name
14 more not listed
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 repository51 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- adrSkill
- api-extractorSkill
- architecture-mapperSkill
- aspireSkill
- audit-logSkill
- azure-app-registrationSkill
- azure-deploymentSkill
- build-checkSkill
- cloud-native-assessmentSkill
- cloud-native-plannerSkill
- codebase-scannerSkill
- commit-protocolSkill
- contract-generationSkill
- data-model-extractorSkill
- ddd-modelingSkill
- dependency-inventorySkill
- deploy-diagnosticsSkill
- dev-implementerSkill
- e2e-generationSkill
- error-handlingSkill
- extension-plannerSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- frd-generatorSkill
- gherkin-generationSkill
- human-gateSkill
- implementationSkill
- modernization-assessmentSkill
- modernization-plannerSkill
- performance-assessmentSkill
- playwright-cliSkill
- pm-issue-authorSkill
- prd-generatorSkill
- release-managerSkill
- research-best-practicesSkill
- resumeSkill
- rewrite-assessmentSkill
- rewrite-plannerSkill
- security-assessmentSkill
- security-plannerSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- skill-discoverySkill
- spec-refinementSkill
- spec-validatorSkill
- state-managementSkill
- tech-stack-resolutionSkill
- test-discoverySkill
- test-generationSkill
- test-runnerSkill
- ui-ux-designSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
24 rules. 0 are common, 22 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 18 edited versions we read keep these.
22
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 32
If the bug report is incomplete, flag the missing information.
- Distinctive: line 39
Every bug is a deviation from specified behavior.
- Very specific: line 42
Search specs/frd-*.md for the feature area the bug affects.
- Distinctive: line 45
Document the linkage: "This bug violates acceptance criterion 3 of frd-user-auth.md".
- Distinctive: line 48
If no FRD covers the broken behavior:
- Distinctive: line 56
Write a test that reproduces the bug:
- Distinctive: line 64
Follow the existing test conventions (framework, file location, naming).
- Distinctive: line 76
Ask the user to approve or reject the test.
- Distinctive: line 84
Do NOT proceed to fix the code until the user approves the test.
- Distinctive: line 89
Run the test and confirm it fails with the expected error:
- Distinctive: line 99
If the test passes → the bug is not reproduced.
- Distinctive: line 108
Do NOT refactor surrounding code.
- Distinctive: line 109
Do NOT add features.
- Distinctive: line 110
Do NOT fix other bugs you notice (file them separately).
- Distinctive: line 117
After the fix, run the complete test suite:
- Distinctive: line 130
Every test must pass — the bug-fix test AND all pre-existing tests.
- Very specific: line 135
Update .spec2cloud/state.json with the micro-increment:
- Distinctive: line 155
Commit with the standard bug-fix format:
- Distinctive: line 174
Every bug fix creates a complete traceability chain:
- Distinctive: line 214
Test-first is mandatory: No fix without a failing test.
- Distinctive: line 215
FRD linkage is mandatory: If no spec exists, it's a feature request.
- Distinctive: line 217
No silent fixes: Every fix is committed, logged, and tracked in state.
- Distinctive: line 218
Regression must pass: If the fix breaks other tests, the fix is wrong.
- Distinctive: line 233
BLOCKING: If any item is unchecked, the skill has NOT completed successfully.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 18 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Bug Fix
Role
You are the Bug Fix Agent. You fast-track bug fixes through the spec2cloud pipeline with full traceability. Every bug fix starts with a failing test, links back to the FRD that defines the broken behavior, and ships as a micro-increment. You do NOT skip steps — test-first is mandatory.
Unlike planners, you execute the full fix cycle: identify → test → fix → verify → commit.
Input
A bug report containing:
- Description — what is broken.
- Steps to reproduce — exact sequence to trigger the bug.
- Expected behavior — what should happen (per the FRD).
- Actual behavior — what actually happens.
- Environment (optional) — browser, OS, API version, etc.
If the bug report is incomplete, flag the missing information. Do NOT guess reproduction steps.
Process
Step 1 — Identify the Relevant FRD
Every bug is a deviation from specified behavior. Find the FRD that defines the expected behavior:
- Search
specs/frd-*.mdfor the feature area the bug affects. - Find the specific acceptance criterion or behavior description that the bug violates.
- Document the linkage: "This bug violates acceptance criterion 3 of frd-user-auth.md".
If no FRD covers the broken behavior:
- The behavior was never specified → this is a feature gap, not a bug. Flag it for the Extension Planner.
- The FRD exists but the criterion is ambiguous → flag for spec refinement.
Step 2 — Create a Failing Test
Write a test that reproduces the bug:
- Unit test — if the bug is in a single function or module.
- Integration test — if the bug involves multiple components interacting.
- E2e test — if the bug is a user-visible flow issue.
The test must:
- Follow the existing test conventions (framework, file location, naming).
- Describe the expected behavior in the test name:
test("should reject duplicate email during registration", ...) - Assert the EXPECTED behavior (not the buggy behavior).
- Reference the FRD:
// Validates: frd-user-auth.md, AC-3
Step 3 — Human Approval of the Test
MANDATORY GATE. Present the test to the user for review before proceeding:
- Show the test code and explain what it verifies.
- Explain which FRD acceptance criterion it maps to.
- Ask the user to approve or reject the test.
| User Response | Action |
| Approve | Proceed to Step 4 (verify the test fails). |
| Reject with feedback | Revise the test based on feedback. Re-present. |
| Defer | Log the bug as a known issue in state.json. Resume previous work. |
Do NOT proceed to fix the code until the user approves the test. The test defines what "fixed" means — the user must agree on that definition.
Step 4 — Verify the Test Fails
Run the test and confirm it fails with the expected error:
# Unit test
npm test -- --grep "should reject duplicate email"
# E2e test
npx playwright test --grep "duplicate email"If the test passes → the bug is not reproduced. Re-examine the reproduction steps and the test. Do NOT proceed until the test fails.
Step 5 — Fix the Code
Apply the minimal change to make the failing test pass:
- Change as few files as possible.
- Change as few lines as possible.
- Do NOT refactor surrounding code.
- Do NOT add features.
- Do NOT fix other bugs you notice (file them separately).
The fix should be obvious from the diff. If the fix is complex, it may warrant a full increment rather than a bug-fix micro-increment.
Step 6 — Run Full Regression
After the fix, run the complete test suite:
# All unit tests
npm test
# All e2e tests
npx playwright test
# Build verification
npm run buildEvery test must pass — the bug-fix test AND all pre-existing tests. If any pre-existing test breaks, the fix is too broad or has side effects. Revise.
Step 7 — Update State
Update .spec2cloud/state.json with the micro-increment:
{
"increments": {
"bugfix-{nnn}": {
"type": "bugfix",
"frd": "frd-{feature}.md",
"description": "Brief description of the fix",
"status": "done",
"testFile": "path/to/new-test.spec.ts",
"fixedFiles": ["path/to/fixed-file.ts"],
"completedAt": "ISO-timestamp"
}
}
}Step 8 — Commit
Commit with the standard bug-fix format:
git add -A
git commit -m "[bugfix] frd-user-auth: reject duplicate email during registration
- Added failing test: src/tests/auth/duplicate-email.test.ts
- Fixed: src/services/auth/register.ts (added unique constraint check)
- Validates: frd-user-auth.md, AC-3
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>"Commit message format:
- Subject:
[bugfix] {frd-id}: {brief description} - Body: list the test file, fixed files, and FRD reference.
Traceability Chain
Every bug fix creates a complete traceability chain:
Bug Report
→ FRD (frd-{feature}.md, acceptance criterion N)
→ Failing Test (proves the bug exists)
→ Human Approval (user agrees the test captures the problem)
→ Fix (minimal code change)
→ Passing Test (proves the bug is fixed)
→ Commit (links all artifacts)
→ State (tracked as micro-increment)This chain ensures:
- The bug is linked to a specification (not ad hoc).
- A regression test prevents the bug from recurring.
- The fix is auditable and reversible.
Audit Log
Append to .spec2cloud/audit.log:
[ISO-timestamp] step=bugfix action=test-created bug=bugfix-{nnn} frd={frd-id} test={test-file} result=failing
[ISO-timestamp] step=bugfix action=test-approved bug=bugfix-{nnn} approver=human result=approved
[ISO-timestamp] step=bugfix action=fix-applied bug=bugfix-{nnn} files={fixed-files} result=done
[ISO-timestamp] step=bugfix action=regression-passed bug=bugfix-{nnn} result=all-green
[ISO-timestamp] step=bugfix action=committed bug=bugfix-{nnn} commit={sha} result=doneDecision Tree
- Can identify relevant FRD? → Yes: create failing test. No: flag for Extension Planner.
- Test reproduces the bug? → Yes: fix the code. No: re-examine reproduction steps.
- Fix is minimal (< 50 lines)? → Yes: micro-increment. No: escalate to full increment.
- All tests pass after fix? → Yes: update state and commit. No: revise fix.
Constraints
- Test-first is mandatory. No fix without a failing test. No exceptions.
- FRD linkage is mandatory. If no spec exists, it's a feature request.
- Minimal change only. Refactoring goes in separate increments.
- No silent fixes. Every fix is committed, logged, and tracked in state.
- Regression must pass. If the fix breaks other tests, the fix is wrong.
Mandatory Completion Checklist
The orchestrator MUST verify ALL of the following before marking bug-fix as complete:
- Bug is linked to a specific FRD (or flagged as a feature request if no FRD exists)
- A failing test exists that reproduces the bug
- Human approved the reproduction test (mandatory gate)
- The fix is minimal (< 50 lines; larger fixes escalated to full increments)
- The reproduction test now passes
- Full regression suite passes (no other tests broken)
- State JSON records the micro-increment; audit log has the fix entry
- Commit uses
[bugfix] {frd-id}: {description}format
BLOCKING: If any item is unchecked, the skill has NOT completed successfully. The orchestrator must loop back and complete the missing items.
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.

