agentleFS
grimoire-rsgrimoire-rs/grimoire/.claude/skills/bugfix/SKILL.md

bugfix

Skill15 starsChanged 18 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when a bug is reported, something is broken, an error or crash needs fixing, a wrong output appears, or a regression shows up — guides Grimoire's Reproduce → Root-Cause → failing-test-FIRST → Fix → Verify discipline and will not let the fix begin until a failing regression test is recorded. Use also when the user says "bugfix", "/bugfix", "fix this bug", or "something is broken".

34 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use feature, refactor and 7 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.
  • bradtraversySkill

    feature

    Manage current feature workflow - start, review, explain or complete

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • GitHubSkill

    refactor

    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 6 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    spec

    Produce a verified spec — problem, desired outcome, and acceptance criteria — before building. Use when given a GitHub/Linear issue link, when starting from a fuzzy in-conversation idea, or asked to "figure out what to do" / "scope this" / "what should I build" — whenever the *what* isn't yet pinned down. Grills the ambiguities, checks the premise against the code, and produces acceptance criteria you sign off on — then hands to design-first.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • BlockSkill

    plan

    Draft a TDD, PRD, or lightweight plan in the conversation without committing it.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    review

    Fixture review skill.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    pr-review

    Verify the technical accuracy of a vscode-docs pull request against the VS Code source code in microsoft/vscode. Use when reviewing a docs PR for factual correctness: setting names, command IDs, default values, API shapes, keybindings, versioned availability, and described behavior.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 31 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Write a one-line repro: "<cmd/inputs> → <observed>.

    line 43
  2. Distinctive:

    If the real cause needs an architectural change, stop and escalate to the feature workflow with a plan artifact — don't paper over it.

    line 55
  3. Distinctive:

    Write the test that exercises the Phase-1 repro and targets the Phase-2 root cause (not just the symptom).

    line 62
  4. Distinctive:

    If an existing test encodes the buggy behavior (it asserts the wrong thing the user is now reporting), that test is part of the bug — note …

    line 69
  5. Distinctive:

    If you cannot make a test fail, you have not reproduced or understood the bug — return to Phase 1/2.

    line 78
  6. Very specific:

    Run the subsystem gate for the changed area (e.g.

    line 92
  7. Very specific:

    Never push — the human decides (see workflow-git.md).

    line 110

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 31 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

/bugfix — Guided Bug-Fix Workflow

Guard rail for the #1 bug-fix failure: fixing before a failing test exists. This skill walks workflow-bugfix.md (the single source of truth) and adds one hard, non-skippable gate — Phase 3 must produce a test that fails on the current code before any fix is written.

Why this exists: the rule alone was repeatedly skipped. This skill makes the order explicit and the gate blocking. Read workflow-bugfix.md for the full rationale; this file is the executable checklist.

The non-negotiable sequence

Reproduce → Root-Cause Analysis → FAILING TEST → Fix → Verify → Review → Commit

Each phase finishes before the next starts. The only way past Phase 3 is a test that you have run and watched fail for the right reason.

Phase 1 — Reproduce (no guessing)

  • State the exact wrong behavior: command, input, observed vs expected.
  • Find the surface: which entry point(s)? CLI command, TUI path, library seam? A bug often lives on more than one surface (e.g. a CLI path AND its TUI twin); list every one that shares the broken code.
  • Confirm it actually reproduces. If you can't reproduce it, keep digging — no speculative fixes.

Write a one-line repro: "<cmd/inputs> → <observed>; expected <expected>".

Phase 2 — Root-Cause Analysis (write it down)

  • Trace the symptom to the line and the condition that made it fire.
  • Output a root-cause statement in this exact shape — no "error on line N":

    X happens because Y, introduced by/located at Z.

  • Single bug or a pattern? Grep for the same defect elsewhere (sibling call sites, the other surface from Phase 1). If it's a pattern, the fix covers all instances.
  • If the real cause needs an architectural change, stop and escalate to the feature workflow with a plan artifact — don't paper over it.

Phase 3 — Failing test FIRST 🚧 GATE

Do not edit any production code until this phase is done.

  1. Write the test that exercises the Phase-1 repro and targets the Phase-2 root cause (not just the symptom).
    • Acceptance-level → test/tests/test_*.py (real binary + registry).
    • Unit-level → inline #[cfg(test)] in the affected module.
  2. Run it. Paste the red output. It must fail, and fail for the bug's reason (assertion on the wrong behavior) — not a compile error, typo, or missing fixture.
  3. If an existing test encodes the buggy behavior (it asserts the wrong thing the user is now reporting), that test is part of the bug — note it; it will be corrected in the fix, with the reason recorded.

Gate to pass Phase 3 — all three true:

  • A test exists that exercises the repro.
  • You ran it and it failed (output shown).
  • The failure is the bug, not test scaffolding.

If you cannot make a test fail, you have not reproduced or understood the bug — return to Phase 1/2. Skipping this gate is the failure mode this skill prevents.

Phase 4 — Fix (minimal, root-cause)

  • Smallest change that addresses the Phase-2 cause. No drive-by refactor, no "while I'm here" cleanup (separate commit, separate type).
  • Fix every instance the Phase-2 pattern search found.
  • Correct any existing test that encoded the wrong behavior — state why in the diff/commit (user intent / corrected contract supersedes the old assumption).

Phase 5 — Verify (evidence, not vibes)

  • The Phase-3 test now passes (show it).
  • Run the subsystem gate for the changed area (e.g. task rust:verify), then cache-bust + re-run unit tests if Rust (touch the edited files so a stale cache can't mask a failure).
  • Manually confirm the Phase-1 repro no longer reproduces.
  • Final gate before commit: task --force verify (fmt + clippy + build + unit + acceptance). Verify it yourself — do not trust "should pass".

Phase 6 — Review-Fix Loop (+ optional Codex)

Apply the canonical Review-Fix Loop from workflow-bugfix.md (correctness vs root cause, regression risk to other callers, minimality, test adequacy). For a non-trivial fix, run one Codex adversarial pass over the diff as the cross-model gate; fix real findings, re-verify, then converge.

Phase 7 — Commit

  • fix: conventional commit; body names the root cause and the regression test.
  • Reference the issue (fixes #N) when one exists.
  • Never push — the human decides (see workflow-git.md).

Anti-rationalizations (stop if you think these)

ThoughtRealityDo this
"I know the cause, I'll just fix it."No Phase-2 statement written.Write the root-cause line first.
"The test is trivial, I'll add it after."A test added after the fix never proved it caught the bug.Write it first, watch it fail.
"Existing tests cover this area."They may encode the buggy behavior.Add a test for the exact broken path.
"Clippy/format nit nearby, I'll fix too."Scope creep.Separate chore:/refactor: commit.

References

  • workflow-bugfix.md — full workflow + gates (source of truth)
  • workflow-intent.md — work-type routing
  • quality-core.md — verification honesty, review checklist
  • workflow-git.md — fix: commits, never push

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.