agentleFS
matheus-rib1108matheus-rib1108/meu-kit-claude-code/skills/seguranca-e-lei/variant-analysis/SKILL.md

variant-analysis

Skill0 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub

Hunts for the other instances of a bug already found — the variants of one root cause across a codebase. Use immediately after a vulnerability, logic bug, or bad pattern turns up in a specific file and the question becomes where else it occurs, including the bare conversational form ("are there others like this?", "is this the same bug?"). Also for generalizing one known instance into a CodeQL or Semgrep query for its whole pattern family, and for triaging a set of look-alike candidates against a known root cause. Not for initial discovery with no bug in hand.

15 other projects use a version of this, 8 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use yara-rule-authoring, second-opinion and 1 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.
  • TheWatcher01Skill

    yara-rule-authoring

    Guides authoring of high-quality YARA-X detection rules for malware identification. Use when writing, reviewing, or optimizing YARA rules. Covers naming conventions, string selection, performance optimization, migration from legacy YARA, and false positive reduction. Triggers on: YARA, YARA-X, malware detection, threat hunting, IOC, signature, crx module, dex module.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    second-opinion

    Independent review of current work or a past session. USE WHEN a user wants a second opinion. DO NOT USE WHEN ordinary code review is wanted — use code-review.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    security-review

    Finds exploitable application security vulnerabilities in code changes. Use for Warden security scans, appsec review, OWASP-style checks, authentication or authorization bugs, injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, secrets, unsafe crypto, webhook verification, open redirects, or sensitive data exposure.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the reference for a step when you reach it.

    line 27
  2. Distinctive:

    2. Create an exact match: Write a pattern matching ONLY the known instance and confirm it hits.

    line 34
  3. Distinctive:

    Use the workflow when the codebase is large or the root cause has many manifestations.

    line 56

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 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

Variant Analysis

Find the other instances of a bug you have already found. One root cause usually has several manifestations, and they are rarely in the module where you found the first one.

When to Use

  • A vulnerability has been found and you need to search for similar instances
  • Building or refining CodeQL/Semgrep queries for security patterns
  • Performing systematic code audits after an initial issue discovery
  • Analyzing how a single root cause manifests in different code paths

When NOT to Use

  • Initial vulnerability discovery — use audit-context-building or a domain-specific audit
  • General code review with no known pattern to search for
  • Writing fix recommendations — use issue-writer
  • Understanding unfamiliar code — use audit-context-building first

The Five Steps

Read the reference for a step when you reach it.

1. Understand the original issue. Extract the root cause — why the code is wrong, not what it does — and enumerate the directions a variant could hide in: related identifiers, other manifestations of the same mistake, data-type edge cases. → references/root-cause.md

2. Create an exact match. Write a pattern matching ONLY the known instance and confirm it hits. A pattern that matches nothing means you have misunderstood the bug, and every search built on it is calibrated against the wrong code.

3–4. Generalize one element at a time. Climb from the exact match toward the pattern family, running and reading all matches after each single change. Stop when more than half the matches are noise. → references/searching.md — abstraction ladder, tool selection, false-positive filters

5. Triage. Decide which candidates are real, and say so with a severity attached. → references/triage.md

Then write it up, including the patterns that failed and a CI rule to prevent regression. → references/reporting.md

Running it as a Workflow

This plugin ships /variant-analysis:variants, which runs the five steps across parallel subagents — one per expansion axis, looping until the sweep stops finding anything new. Each stage reads the reference above that matches its job.

Use the workflow when the codebase is large or the root cause has many manifestations. Work the steps directly when the search is narrow or you want a say in each generalization.

What Makes Hunts Fail

  1. Narrow scope — searching only the module the original bug was in
  2. Pattern too specific — searching one attribute and missing the family around it
  3. One vulnerability class — chasing a single manifestation of the root cause
  4. Happy-path testing — never trying the null, empty, and boundary cases
  5. Generalizing too fast — abstracting several elements at once, so noise cannot be attributed to any one of them

The first three are covered in root-cause.md and searching.md, the fourth in triage.md.

Resources

CodeQL (resources/codeql/): python.ql, javascript.ql, java.ql, go.ql, cpp.ql

Semgrep (resources/semgrep/): python.yaml, javascript.yaml, java.yaml, go.yaml, cpp.yaml

Report: resources/variant-report-template.md

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.