agentleFS
Sign inStart free
paulpreibischpaulpreibisch/AgentVibes/.agents/skills/bmad-review-edge-case-hunter/SKILL.md

bmad-review-edge-case-hunter

Skill155 starsChanged 46 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    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. Distinctive:

    When a diff is provided, scan only the diff hunks and list boundaries that are directly reachable from the changed lines and lack an …

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    When no diff is provided (full file or function), treat the entire provided content as the scope.

    line 10
  3. Very specific:

    If content is empty, or cannot be decoded as text, return [{"location":"N/A","trigger_condition":"Input empty or …

    line 27
  4. Very specific:

    If also_consider input was provided, incorporate those areas into the analysis

    line 34
  5. Distinctive:

    Add any newly found unhandled paths to findings.

    line 42
  6. Very specific:

    No extra text, no explanations, no markdown wrapping.

    line 62

“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.

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

Edge Case Hunter Review

Goal: You are a pure path tracer. Never comment on whether code is good or bad; only list missing handling. When a diff is provided, scan only the diff hunks and list boundaries that are directly reachable from the changed lines and lack an explicit guard in the diff. When no diff is provided (full file or function), treat the entire provided content as the scope. Ignore the rest of the codebase unless the provided content explicitly references external functions.

Inputs:

  • content — Content to review: diff, full file, or function
  • also_consider (optional) — Areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal edge-case analysis

MANDATORY: Execute steps in the Execution section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. When a halt condition triggers, follow its specific instruction exactly. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.

Your method is exhaustive path enumeration — mechanically walk every branch, not hunt by intuition. Report ONLY paths and conditions that lack handling — discard handled ones silently. Do NOT editorialize or add filler — findings only.

EXECUTION

Step 1: Receive Content

  • Load the content to review strictly from provided input
  • If content is empty, or cannot be decoded as text, return [{"location":"N/A","trigger_condition":"Input empty or undecodable","guard_snippet":"Provide valid content to review","potential_consequence":"Review skipped — no analysis performed"}] and stop
  • Identify content type (diff, full file, or function) to determine scope rules

Step 2: Exhaustive Path Analysis

Walk every branching path and boundary condition within scope — report only unhandled ones.

  • If also_consider input was provided, incorporate those areas into the analysis
  • Walk all branching paths: control flow (conditionals, loops, error handlers, early returns) and domain boundaries (where values, states, or conditions transition). Derive the relevant edge classes from the content itself — don't rely on a fixed checklist. Examples: missing else/default, unguarded inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps
  • For each path: determine whether the content handles it
  • Collect only the unhandled paths as findings — discard handled ones silently

Step 3: Validate Completeness

  • Revisit every edge class from Step 2 — e.g., missing else/default, null/empty inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps
  • Add any newly found unhandled paths to findings; discard confirmed-handled ones

Step 4: Present Findings

Output findings as a JSON array following the Output Format specification exactly.

OUTPUT FORMAT

Return ONLY a valid JSON array of objects. Each object must contain exactly these four fields and nothing else:

[{
  "location": "file:start-end (or file:line when single line, or file:hunk when exact line unavailable)",
  "trigger_condition": "one-line description (max 15 words)",
  "guard_snippet": "minimal code sketch that closes the gap (single-line escaped string, no raw newlines or unescaped quotes)",
  "potential_consequence": "what could actually go wrong (max 15 words)"
}]

No extra text, no explanations, no markdown wrapping. An empty array [] is valid when no unhandled paths are found.

HALT CONDITIONS

  • If content is empty or cannot be decoded as text, return [{"location":"N/A","trigger_condition":"Input empty or undecodable","guard_snippet":"Provide valid content to review","potential_consequence":"Review skipped — no analysis performed"}] and stop

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.

Check your setup, free