agentleFS
nowsprintingnowsprinting/unity-coding-skills/skills/fix-bug/SKILL.md

fix-bug

Skill20 starsChanged 26 days agoUnlicenseView on GitHub

Diagnoses and fixes bugs using a test-first workflow (reproduce, diagnose, fix). Use this skill whenever the user reports a bug, describes unexpected behavior, or asks to investigate or fix a defect. Even if the user says "something's broken", "this isn't working", "fix this bug", or "why does X happen", load this skill to guide the full reproduce → diagnose → fix cycle.

40 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use improvement, build-feature and 10 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.
  • kiminmonacoSkill

    improvement

    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

  • sirakinbSkill

    build-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

  • kiminmonacoSkill

    implement-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

  • SentrySkill

    write-tests

    Write tests following project conventions. Use when adding new tests or modifying existing ones.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • JetBrainsSkill

    create-plan

    Research the codebase and create an implementation plan with architecture notes, design document, and track decomposition. Use when starting a new feature or large change.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • JasonPaffSkill

    implement-plan

    Execute implementation plan with structured tracking and validation using subagent architecture

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

23 rules. 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 10 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 40 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 13

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 10

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    When a step delegates to a subagent or another skill (test-designer in Step 2.

    line 46
  2. Very specific:

    If any of the three cannot be determined from the prompt, use AskUserQuestion to ask the user before proceeding.

    line 58
  3. Distinctive:

    Search the project's test code for existing tests closest to the bug scenario.

    line 75
  4. Distinctive:

    Use Explore agents to locate relevant test files and test cases.

    line 81
  5. Distinctive:

    If an existing test is testing the wrong behavior (i.e., the test itself is buggy), rewrite that test to correctly reproduce the bug rather …

    line 104
  6. Very specific:

    Run tests using the /run-tests skill and verify that the reproduction test fails:

    line 109
  7. Distinctive:

    If a test was added in Step 2: run that specific test.

    line 111
  8. Very specific:

    If multiple tests fail and it is unclear which one corresponds to the reported bug, use AskUserQuestion to ask the user which test to focus …

    line 114
  9. Distinctive:

    Delete the reproduction test

    line 119
  10. Very specific:

    If reproduction has been attempted 3 times without success, return to Step 1 and use AskUserQuestion to re-clarify the bug report with the …

    line 122
  11. Distinctive:

    Test failure message (actual output from the test run)

    line 130
  12. Distinctive:

    Commit the reproduction test — if test code is modified in a later step, the integrity of Test First is compromised.

    line 133
  13. Distinctive:

    Before applying the fix, check whether the affected area has adequate coverage for adjacent behavior:

    line 146
  14. Very specific:

    Start from the regression test cases the test-designer agent produced in Step 2 (if Step 2 ran)

    line 148
  15. Distinctive:

    Read the test files for the affected production code

    line 149
  16. Very specific:

    If gaps exist, add regression tests (per test-writing-guide) and run them — they must pass (they test existing correct behavior, not the …

    line 151
  17. Very specific:

    Run all affected tests using /run-tests

    line 158
  18. Distinctive:

    All regression tests still pass

    line 161
  19. Distinctive:

    Commit production code fix to git (includes regression tests from Step 6 and any unavoidable changes to the reproduction test)

    line 162
  20. Very specific:

    Run the Claude Code built-in /simplify skill (Skill({skill: "simplify"}) — not a plugin skill) to apply quality improvements to the …

    line 167
  21. Very specific:

    Run /resolve-diagnostics with the files added or modified in this iteration — compute the list after the test-deduplicator agent and …

    line 169
  22. Distinctive:

    Commit all remaining changes to git

    line 170
  23. Distinctive:

    Delete the temporary notes file if it exists

    line 176

“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.

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

Guide for diagnosing and fixing bugs. This skill defines a test-first debugging workflow: reproduce the bug with a failing test, diagnose the root cause, then fix it.

Mode Check

This skill must be used outside plan mode. Before doing anything else, check the current mode:

  • ExitPlanMode is NOT in the deferred tools list (i.e., directly callable) → in plan mode → stop immediately and tell the user:

    "This skill (/fix-bug) must be used outside plan mode. Please exit plan mode first."

  • ExitPlanMode is in the deferred tools list → not in plan mode → proceed.

Workflow

Recording implementation notes: Notes for this run go in <scratchpad>/implementation-notes.md, where <scratchpad> is the scratchpad directory listed in your system prompt (write its absolute path literally). Immediately before your first append in this run — and only then — delete that file if it exists (usually it will not), so this run starts from an empty one: every /fix-bug, /refine-tests, and plan-file run in the session shares this file, so an earlier run abandoned before its Implementation Notes step would otherwise leak its notes into this one. Never delete it again afterwards, including when Step 3 sends you back to Step 1 or Step 2; those loops are part of the same run and their notes must survive.

While working through Steps 1-8, whenever one of the following occurs, immediately append a line to that file — do not wait until the end to reconstruct these from memory:

  • The confirmed Condition / Expected / Actual differs from what the user first reported, or the documentation conflicted with the report and you resolved which is correct → Bug report clarifications
  • You established — or later revised — which line(s) or logic are responsible and why they misbehave, including when the fix actually applied differs from the one formulated in Step 5 → Root cause
  • You investigated a suspected cause, code path, or reproduction approach and eliminated it → Ruled out
  • You considered alternatives and chose one, and why → Tradeoffs
  • You modified or deleted test code that was already committed, and why → Test changes

Append with Bash — the Write tool cannot append:

cat >> "<scratchpad>/implementation-notes.md" <<'EOF'
- **Root cause**: <one line>
EOF

When a step delegates to a subagent or another skill (test-designer in Step 2; test-deduplicator, /simplify, and /resolve-diagnostics in Step 8), append the note yourself from what it returns — they do not write to this file.

Step 1: Clarify the Bug Report

Work from the user's report, specs, and design docs only — do not read code yet. Reading the implementation here biases "Expected" toward what the code does rather than what the spec says.

Extract the following from the user's prompt:

  • Condition: the setup or scenario that triggers the bug
  • Expected: the expected behavior
  • Actual: the observed behavior

If any of the three cannot be determined from the prompt, use AskUserQuestion to ask the user before proceeding. All three must be known before moving to Step 2.

Also determine the report type:

  • Existing test failure — the user reports that an existing test is failing. The specific failing test method need not be known at this stage; note the scope (class name, scene name, or test assembly) from the prompt. Step 2 is skipped — proceed directly to Step 3.
  • Behavioral bug — the user describes unexpected runtime behavior with no mention of a failing test. Proceed normally through Step 2.

Also check the relevant documentation (specs, design docs) for consistency with the user's bug report. If the documentation and the report conflict, use AskUserQuestion to clarify with the user which is correct. If the docs contain errors or are missing relevant information, add them to the list of files to be modified in this bug fix.

Step 2: Write the Reproduction Test

Skip this step if Step 1 identified this as an existing test failure case. Proceed directly to Step 3.

Search the project's test code for existing tests closest to the bug scenario. These serve two purposes:

  • Placement anchor — add the reproduction test nearby
  • Style reference — follow the same test conventions

When the bug condition involves on-screen display or a user-facing UI operation, search for integration tests with UI operations or visual verification tests — the reproduction test must be at that layer, so the placement anchor and style reference must be too.

Use Explore agents to locate relevant test files and test cases.

Launch the test-designer agent to design the reproduction test case — do not design it in the main context. Set an Opus-class or more capable model in the model parameter, so test design stays on a strong model even when the main session runs on a faster one. Use the following prompt structure:

## Requirements
[Bug report from Step 1: Condition / Expected / Actual.
Task type: bug-fix — design a reproduction test and regression tests per the reproduction-tests section of the guide.]

## Implementation Design
[Existing class/method structure of the affected production code, from the Explore results — this is the design; there is no new design for a bug fix]

## Existing Code Context
[Nearby test files, test classes, and conventions found above]

## Language Convention
[Project language resolved from CLAUDE.md; default English]

From the agent's output, take the test case marked (reproduction test). Keep any regression test cases for Step 6 — do not implement them yet.

Then load the test-writing-guide and code-writing-guide skills — test code is code, so both guides apply; do not rely on automatic skill triggering — and implement the reproduction test. Place it near the similar tests found above.

If an existing test is testing the wrong behavior (i.e., the test itself is buggy), rewrite that test to correctly reproduce the bug rather than adding a new one.

Step 3: Verify the Reproduction Test Fails

Run tests using the /run-tests skill and verify that the reproduction test fails:

  • If a test was added in Step 2: run that specific test.
  • If Step 2 was skipped (existing test failure): narrow down the test to run using the scope identified in Step 1 (e.g., a specific test class or assembly). If narrowing down is not possible, run all tests.

If multiple tests fail and it is unclear which one corresponds to the reported bug, use AskUserQuestion to ask the user which test to focus on.

If the test does not fail (Step 2 path only)

  • Delete the reproduction test
  • Return to Step 2 and search more broadly

If reproduction has been attempted 3 times without success, return to Step 1 and use AskUserQuestion to re-clarify the bug report with the user.

Step 4: Confirm Reproduction with User

Present the reproduction evidence to the user via AskUserQuestion before proceeding. Include:

  • Reproduction test: file path and method name
  • Test failure message (actual output from the test run)

Once the user confirms the reproduction is as expected:

  1. Commit the reproduction test — if test code is modified in a later step, the integrity of Test First is compromised; commit here without fail so the diff remains verifiable
  2. Proceed to Step 5

Step 5: Diagnose & Formulate Fix

With the reproduction confirmed, investigate the root cause:

  1. Trace through the code path triggered by the reproduction test
  2. Identify the specific line(s) or logic responsible for the bug
  3. Formulate a fix

Step 6: Regression Test Coverage

Before applying the fix, check whether the affected area has adequate coverage for adjacent behavior:

  1. Start from the regression test cases the test-designer agent produced in Step 2 (if Step 2 ran)
  2. Read the test files for the affected production code
  3. Identify behaviors that could regress from the change but are not currently tested
  4. If gaps exist, add regression tests (per test-writing-guide) and run them — they must pass (they test existing correct behavior, not the bug itself)

Step 7: Apply Fix & Verify

  1. Load the code-writing-guide skill — do not rely on automatic skill triggering
  2. Apply the fix formulated in Step 5 to the production code
  3. Run all affected tests using /run-tests
  4. Confirm:
    • The reproduction test now passes (bug is fixed)
    • All regression tests still pass
  5. Commit production code fix to git (includes regression tests from Step 6 and any unavoidable changes to the reproduction test)

Step 8: Refactoring

  1. Launch test-deduplicator agent with: list of test files added or modified in this iteration
  2. Run the Claude Code built-in /simplify skill (Skill({skill: "simplify"}) — not a plugin skill) to apply quality improvements to the modified code
  3. Re-run tests using /run-tests command to confirm they still pass
  4. Run /resolve-diagnostics with the files added or modified in this iteration — compute the list after the test-deduplicator agent and /simplify finish, so their edits are covered too
  5. Commit all remaining changes to git

Step 9: Implementation Notes

  1. Read <scratchpad>/implementation-notes.md if it exists
  2. Report the entries to the user in chat under an ## Implementation Notes heading — one bold sub-heading per category, each followed by a bullet list. Always include all six categories in this order: Bug report clarifications, Root cause, Ruled out, Tradeoffs, Test changes, Open questions. Write - None for any category with nothing recorded, and add any last-minute Open questions before finalizing. If the file was never created, report every category as "None"
  3. Delete the temporary notes file if it exists

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.