bughunt
Skill1 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub
Issue→dev orchestrator that drives one bug report end-to-end — start the issue, root-cause it, audit the whole bug class, fix, test, verify, E2E, and open the PR to the integration branch. Chains the github-issue, diagnose, github-pr and comprehensive-review skills; does NOT reimplement them. INVOCATION-ONLY — triggers ONLY on the literal "/bughunt <issue#>". Never auto-triggers on "fix this" / "debug this" (those stay with the diagnose skill). Never touches main.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- joi-fairshare/agentic-workflowtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Tcuzzo/backs-aios-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- jthorare/agentic-workflowtheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- cskwork/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 9, 2026
- PLC-lang/rustytheir own version, first seen Oct 9, 2026
- av/harbortheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use verify-app and review.
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.
martinappbergSkillverify-app
Verify runtime-observable Chimaera changes end to end against the real daemon, UI, and PTY layer.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillreview
Fixture review skill.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- av/harbor★ 3.3ksame name
- PLC-lang/rusty★ 372same name
- drafthq/draft★ 40same name
- av/skills★ 28same name
- cskwork/skills★ 3same name
- joi-fairshare/agentic-workflow★ 3same name
- jthorare/agentic-workflow★ 3same name
- Tcuzzo/backs-aios-skills★ 2same name
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 repository9 other files it gives its agents.
- commitSkill
- comprehensive-reviewSkill
- councilSkill
- dequeueSkill
- enqueueSkill
- github-issueSkill
- github-prSkill
- md2pdfSkill
- threadsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 33
Read title, body, comments, linked PRs.
- Very specific: line 36
Run its START workflow (issue start <N> --type bug ...).
- Distinctive: line 43
Search for the SAME broken pattern elsewhere (e.g.
- Distinctive: line 58
Never touch
main: No release, no prod merge inside bughunt. - Very specific: line 60
Reuse, don't reimplement: If github-issue/diagnose/github-pr exist, delegate.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 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
/bughunt — one bug, issue-number-in → PR-to-dev
An orchestrator, not new logic. It sequences skills you already trust and adds two hard human checkpoints at the only two irreversible boundaries. If a delegated skill is missing, degrade gracefully (do the step inline, note it) — never fail the whole run.
Invocation: /bughunt <issue#> only. Do NOT run this from a natural-language "fix/debug this" — that is the diagnose skill's job. If the user typed prose, don't invoke bughunt.
Never touches main. Ends at a PR to the integration branch (dev) + issue END. Shipping to prod is a separate, deliberate /github-pr release run on dev (that is where Closes # fires).
Pipeline
/bughunt 993
0. Preflight — confirm repo + issue exist; read issue fully
1. START — delegate: github-issue start (Type=bug, In-Progress, dates, assignee, priority, effort)
2. Diagnose — delegate: diagnose / systematic-debugging → reproduce + root-cause
⛔ CHECKPOINT 1 (HARD) — present root cause; user confirms before any code changes
3. Class audit — find siblings of the SAME root-cause pattern (default: changed file + obvious call sites)
4. Finish — delegate: github-pr (finish pipeline: simplify → review → tests → verify → E2E)
⛔ CHECKPOINT 2 (HARD) — present E2E before/after evidence; user confirms before PR
→ commit → PR to dev → github-issue END
5. Handoff — report; state that release to prod is a separate /github-pr run on devPhase detail
0. Preflight
- Resolve target repo (must run inside a dev repo; if ambiguous, ask).
gh issue view <N>— abort if not found. - Read title, body, comments, linked PRs. If the issue is a feature/task, stop — bughunt is for bugs; suggest
/github-issueinstead.
1. START (delegate → github-issue)
- Run its START workflow (
issue start <N> --type bug ...). LLM-estimate priority/effort per that skill's rules (Urgent = prod-block only). Gate: its exit code 0.
2. Diagnose (delegate → diagnose / systematic-debugging)
- Triage first per the diagnose skill's Step 0: its tier decides whether a repro is needed at all. When the cause is unknown, state the hypothesis in its required form (symptom → cause → verification → expected-if-true/false).
- ⛔ CHECKPOINT 1: surface the confirmed root cause in 3-5 lines. Stop. Wait for the user to confirm the diagnosis is right before writing any fix. A wrong root cause wastes the entire run — this gate is not skippable.
3. Class audit
- Search for the SAME broken pattern elsewhere (e.g. other owner-blind write paths, other stale-anchor reads). Default breadth = the changed file + its obvious siblings/call-sites.
- Whole-repo sweep is opt-in — if the class looks broad, say so and ask before fanning out (this is the scope-balloon risk). Fold confirmed siblings into the same fix.
4. Finish (delegate → github-pr, feature branch → dev)
- Hand the working tree to the github-pr finish pipeline as-is: simplify → review (comprehensive-review) → tests (Phase 3, writes/extends the regression tests for the fixed class) → verify (Phase 4, incl. 4d env statement) → E2E (Phase 5, HARD gate for bugfixes: reproduce-broken then confirm-fixed on a real build).
- ⛔ CHECKPOINT 2: present the E2E before (broken) / after (fixed) evidence. Stop. Wait for user confirm before the PR is opened. Do not merge on plausibility.
- Then let github-pr commit → open the PR to
dev(withCloses #<N>, armed-not-fired) → run github-issue END.
5. Handoff
- Report: root cause, siblings fixed (the class), tests added, PR link, issue state.
- State explicitly: the issue is NOT closed yet — it closes when a separate
/github-prrelease run carriesdev → main. Do not hand-close it.
Guardrails (hard)
- Two checkpoints are non-skippable. No
--yolo. The value is autonomy between the gates, not through them. - Never touch
main. No release, no prod merge inside bughunt. - Never auto-trigger. Literal
/bughunt <issue#>only. - Reuse, don't reimplement. If github-issue/diagnose/github-pr exist, delegate. Only inline a step when its skill is absent, and say so.
- Class audit asks before going wide. Changed-file scope is free; repo-wide sweep needs a yes.
Delegation map
| Phase | Skill | Owns |
| 1, 4-end | github-issue | lifecycle envelope: START fields, END date, board state |
| 2 | diagnose / systematic-debugging | reproduce + root-cause loop |
| 4 | github-pr | code→PR gate: simplify/review/tests/verify/E2E/commit/PR |
| 4 | comprehensive-review | invoked by github-pr Phase 2 |
What this deliberately does NOT do
- Ship to prod / merge to main (separate
/github-prrelease run). - Close the issue (release does, so "closed" always means "in prod").
- Fully autonomous prod changes (the two checkpoints are the point).
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.

