fix-bug
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when a user reports incorrect, regressed, flaky, failing, or unexpected software behavior that needs evidence-backed diagnosis and a safe fix.
40 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Doist/todoist-aitheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- Doist/todoist-clitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- danielvm-git/bigpowerstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- tddworks/ClaudeBartheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- mthines/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 30, 2026
- aantoniadis/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use improvement, build-feature 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.
kiminmonacoSkillimprovement
Guide for making improvements to existing ClaudeBar functionality using TDD. Use this skill when: (1) Enhancing existing features (not adding new ones) (2) Improving UX, performance, or code quality (3) User asks "improve X", "make Y better", or "enhance Z" (4) Small enhancements that don't require full architecture design For NEW features, use implement-feature skill instead.
Also in 4 projects that use this
sirakinbSkillbuild-feature
Autonomous task loop that picks ready tasks, implements them, updates progress.txt, commits, and repeats. Use when asked to 'build feature', 'run the loop', or 'implement these tasks'.
Also in 5 projects that use this
kiminmonacoSkillimplement-feature
Guide for implementing features in ClaudeBar following architecture-first design, TDD, rich domain models, and Swift 6.2 patterns. Use this skill when: (1) Adding new functionality to the app (2) Creating domain models that follow user's mental model (3) Building SwiftUI views that consume domain models directly (4) User asks "how do I implement X" or "add feature Y" (5) Implementing any feature that spans Domain, Infrastructure, and App layers
Also in 7 projects that use this
JasonPaffSkillimplement-plan
Execute implementation plan with structured tracking and validation using subagent architecture
Also in 3 projects that use this
ElasticSkillcreate-skill
Interactively create a new Claude Code skill and add it to the elastic-docs-skills catalog. Use when the user wants to generate a new skill, scaffold a slash command, or build automation for docs tasks.
Also in 5 projects that use this
NVIDIASkillreview-code
Review a code repository for concrete issues in correctness, robustness, security, maintainability, tests, and integration. Use for repository-wide or focused code review where practical engineering judgment and strict scope control matter.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions40 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 40
- remix-run/react-router★ 57ksame name
- ktorio/ktor★ 15ksame name
- JetBrains/Exposed★ 9.3ksame name
- bytebase/dbhub★ 3.8ksame name
- The-OpenROAD-Project/OpenROAD★ 3.3ksame name
- JamieMason/syncpack★ 2.1ksame name
- tddworks/ClaudeBar★ 1.6ksame name
- Harry-kp/vortix★ 757same name
- Doist/todoist-ai★ 563same name
- tddworks/asc-cli★ 393same name
30 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 repository66 other files it gives its agents.
- adb-android-app-opsSkill
- agents-sdkSkill
- api-documentationSkill
- atlasSkill
- backend-api-auth-guardrailsSkill
- browser-useSkill
- bundleSkill
- changelogSkill
- chatgpt-appsSkill
- chrome-devtools-testSkill
- chronicleSkill
- cloudflare-deploySkill
- cloudflare-email-serviceSkill
- cloudflare-one-migrationsSkill
- cloudflare-oneSkill
- cloudflareSkill
- computer-useSkill
- create-planSkill
- database-analysisSkill
- database-data-guardrailsSkill
- debug-memory-leakSkill
- deep-initSkill
- deploySkill
- develop-web-gameSkill
- dev-workflowSkill
- docSkill
- durable-objectsSkill
- explainSkill
- figmaSkill
- firmware-feature-writerSkill
- fix-lintSkill
- frontend-mobile-uiux-designerSkill
- frontend-ui-guardrailsSkill
- gemini-cliSkill
- grok-x-searchSkill
- hermes-chromeSkill
- image-file-readerSkill
- imagegenSkill
- infra-ops-mobile-guardrailsSkill
- layout-reviewSkill
- localizeSkill
- multimodal-lookerSkill
- openai-docsSkill
- optimizeSkill
- parallel-devSkill
- plan-modeSkill
- playwrightSkill
- project-planningSkill
- qa-testerSkill
- refactorSkill
- review-changesSkill
- review-fix-shipSkill
- rust-programmerSkill
- sandbox-sdkSkill
- screenshotSkill
- security-auditSkill
- security-scanSkill
- security-threat-modelSkill
- source-command-collab-startSkill
- turnstile-spinSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
16 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 40 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
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
Treat bugs as non-trivial by default when they touch business logic, critical paths, auth, permissions, payments, data mutation, public API …
- Distinctive: line 14
Do not implement speculative permanent fixes.
- Distinctive: line 22
Prefer writing a failing test first to lock the behavior.
- Distinctive: line 23
If deterministic tests are not yet possible, capture the smallest reliable reproduction artifact first: script, fixture, log slice, request …
- Distinctive: line 25
If you cannot reproduce or explain the symptom, do not guess.
- Distinctive: line 29
Do not code until you can explain the root cause and show evidence.
- Very specific: line 34
Search: rg for keywords, error codes, feature flags, and state transitions.
- Distinctive: line 53
If the fix becomes long, multi-purpose, or hard to explain with one rationale, split it or state why it must remain unified.
- Distinctive: line 54
If technical debt caused the bug, do only the smallest refactor that prevents recurrence and can be verified.
- Distinctive: line 59
Run targeted tests first, then broader checks proportional to the risk.
- Distinctive: line 60
Verify success and failure paths when the bug touches state changes, permissions, schema, transactions, or external integrations.
- Distinctive: line 61
If only a mitigation was shipped, verify the mitigation path, document the evidence gap, and leave a clear next-step RCA plan.
- Distinctive: line 62
Remove temporary instrumentation before finalizing unless the user explicitly approves keeping it as production-safe observability.
- Distinctive: line 68
Update docs, developer notes, or runbooks when behavior, operations, or troubleshooting steps changed.
- Distinctive: line 73
Keep the answer concise, but do not omit reproduction evidence, root cause, verification, or remaining risk.
- Distinctive: line 74
If automation was skipped, state why and provide reproducible manual verification steps.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 40 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
Fix Bug (Root Cause First)
Goal: fix bugs by addressing the root cause, not symptoms. For non-trivial bugs, keep dev-workflow as the outer controller and use this skill for reproduction, RCA, bug-specific TDD, and regression verification.
Trigger Policy
- Apply when behavior is broken, regressed, flaky, failing in tests or production, or inconsistent with expected output.
- Treat bugs as non-trivial by default when they touch business logic, critical paths, auth, permissions, payments, data mutation, public API contracts, shared helpers, or cross-module integrations.
- Do not implement speculative permanent fixes. If evidence is incomplete, add the smallest safe instrumentation or ship only a reversible mitigation.
Workflow
1. Understand + Reproduce
- Collect symptoms: error message, logs, inputs, environment, version, expected vs actual, affected users or surfaces, and known non-goals.
- Reproduce with the smallest reliable case.
- Prefer writing a failing test first to lock the behavior.
- If deterministic tests are not yet possible, capture the smallest reliable reproduction artifact first: script, fixture, log slice, request sample, browser/screenshot scenario, or telemetry query.
- For flaky or production-only bugs, use sampled logs, traces, source inspection, temporary instrumentation, and repeated attempts to separate signal from noise.
- If you cannot reproduce or explain the symptom, do not guess. Ask for missing context, add reversible instrumentation, or propose a reversible mitigation with the evidence gap clearly documented.
2. Root Cause Analysis (Mandatory)
Do not code until you can explain the root cause and show evidence.
Use:
- Static analysis: jump-to-def, find refs, type hovers, call hierarchy.
- Search:
rgfor keywords, error codes, feature flags, and state transitions. - Git history:
git blame,git log -p, and related PR context to learn intent. - Data-flow tracing: input -> validation -> transformation -> side effect -> output.
- Hypothesis testing: form one hypothesis, verify or falsify it with test/log/source evidence, then continue.
- Instrumentation: temporary JSON logs with
trace_idwhen applicable; never log secrets, tokens, passwords, OTPs, or sensitive personal data.
Required RCA output before implementation:
- Bug symptom:
- Reproduction artifact:
- Root cause:
- Evidence:
- Scope / blast radius:
3. Design the Fix
- Minimize blast radius; prefer small, atomic, reviewable changes.
- State the fix rationale and why it addresses the root cause rather than only the symptom.
- Preserve existing contracts unless the user explicitly approves a behavior or API change.
- If the fix becomes long, multi-purpose, or hard to explain with one rationale, split it or state why it must remain unified.
- If technical debt caused the bug, do only the smallest refactor that prevents recurrence and can be verified.
4. Implement + Verify
- Make the failing test pass, or make the reproduction artifact pass when automated tests are not practical.
- Run targeted tests first, then broader checks proportional to the risk.
- Verify success and failure paths when the bug touches state changes, permissions, schema, transactions, or external integrations.
- If only a mitigation was shipped, verify the mitigation path, document the evidence gap, and leave a clear next-step RCA plan.
- Remove temporary instrumentation before finalizing unless the user explicitly approves keeping it as production-safe observability.
5. Review + Document
- Re-review the diff for security, error handling, logging hygiene, compatibility, and hidden scope expansion.
- Confirm unrelated changes remain untouched.
- Update docs, developer notes, or runbooks when behavior, operations, or troubleshooting steps changed.
Output Contract
- For significant bugs, report sections in this order:
Symptom,RCA,Fix,Verification,Risks. - Keep the answer concise, but do not omit reproduction evidence, root cause, verification, or remaining risk.
- If automation was skipped, state why and provide reproducible manual verification steps.
Suggested Short Template
- Symptom:
- Reproduction artifact:
- Root cause:
- Evidence:
- Fix:
- Verified:
- Skipped / blocked:
- Risks / assumptions:
- Rollback:
Example Snippets
Reproducible API Bug
Symptom: RetriedPOST /invoicescreates duplicate invoices.Reproduction artifact: Integration test sends the same idempotency key twice and observes two rows.Root cause: Retry path bypasses the idempotency lookup before the create operation.Fix: Route retry creates through the existing idempotency guard without changing the public API.Verified: Failing regression test now passes; targeted invoice tests pass.
Production-Only Flaky Bug
Symptom: Checkout occasionally returns500after payment provider timeout.Reproduction artifact: Sampled logs with sharedtrace_idshow timeout followed by a duplicate state transition.Root cause: Timeout handler retries a non-idempotent transition without checking current order state.Fix: Add state guard before retry and keep temporary safe metrics only if approved.Verified: Targeted state-transition test covers timeout retry; log query confirms no matching failures after mitigation window.
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.

