agentleFS
robinbrilrobinbril/claude-code-harness/skills/find-bugs/SKILL.md

find-bugs

Skill3 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub

Find bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues in local branch changes. Use when asked to review changes, find bugs, security review, or audit code on the current branch.

15 other projects use a version of this, 4 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use gcp-cloud-run, conversation-memory and 9 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.
  • xfstudioSkill

    gcp-cloud-run

    Specialized skill for building production-ready serverless applications on GCP. Covers Cloud Run services (containerized), Cloud Run Functions (event-driven), cold start optimization, and event-driven architecture with Pub/Sub.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • xfstudioSkill

    conversation-memory

    Persistent memory systems for LLM conversations including short-term, long-term, and entity-based memory Use when: conversation memory, remember, memory persistence, long-term memory, chat history.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    iterate-pr

    Iterate on a PR until actionable CI passes and high/medium review feedback is addressed. Use for PR CI failures, review feedback, or green-check loops; do not wait for human approval, draft status, or merge gates.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • xenitV1Skill

    powershell-windows

    PowerShell Windows patterns. Critical pitfalls, operator syntax, error handling.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • abdullah1854Skill

    context-optimization

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    code-simplifier

    Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Use when asked to "simplify code", "clean up code", "refactor for clarity", "improve readability", or review recently modified code for elegance. Focuses on project-specific best practices.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +1 more from getsentry

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 11

    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:

    If output is truncated, read each changed file individually until you have seen every changed line

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    All user inputs (request params, headers, body, URL components)

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    All authentication/authorization checks

    line 22
  4. Distinctive:

    All session/state operations

    line 23
  5. Distinctive:

    Check if it's already handled elsewhere in the changed code

    line 45
  6. Distinctive:

    Search for existing tests covering the scenario

    line 46
  7. Distinctive:

    Read surrounding context to verify the issue is real

    line 47
  8. Distinctive:

    Before finalizing, you MUST:

    line 51
  9. Distinctive:

    Only then provide your final findings

    line 56
  10. Distinctive:

    If you find nothing significant, say so - don't invent issues.

    line 73
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not make changes - just report findings.

    line 75

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 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

Find Bugs

Review changes on this branch for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues.

Phase 1: Complete Input Gathering

  1. Get the FULL diff: git diff $(gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name')...HEAD
  2. If output is truncated, read each changed file individually until you have seen every changed line
  3. List all files modified in this branch before proceeding

Phase 2: Attack Surface Mapping

For each changed file, identify and list:

  • All user inputs (request params, headers, body, URL components)
  • All database queries
  • All authentication/authorization checks
  • All session/state operations
  • All external calls
  • All cryptographic operations

Phase 3: Security Checklist (check EVERY item for EVERY file)

  • Injection: SQL, command, template, header injection
  • XSS: All outputs in templates properly escaped?
  • Authentication: Auth checks on all protected operations?
  • Authorization/IDOR: Access control verified, not just auth?
  • CSRF: State-changing operations protected?
  • Race conditions: TOCTOU in any read-then-write patterns?
  • Session: Fixation, expiration, secure flags?
  • Cryptography: Secure random, proper algorithms, no secrets in logs?
  • Information disclosure: Error messages, logs, timing attacks?
  • DoS: Unbounded operations, missing rate limits, resource exhaustion?
  • Business logic: Edge cases, state machine violations, numeric overflow?

Phase 4: Verification

For each potential issue:

  • Check if it's already handled elsewhere in the changed code
  • Search for existing tests covering the scenario
  • Read surrounding context to verify the issue is real

Phase 5: Pre-Conclusion Audit

Before finalizing, you MUST:

  1. List every file you reviewed and confirm you read it completely
  2. List every checklist item and note whether you found issues or confirmed it's clean
  3. List any areas you could NOT fully verify and why
  4. Only then provide your final findings

Output Format

Prioritize: security vulnerabilities > bugs > code quality

Skip: stylistic/formatting issues

For each issue:

  • File:Line - Brief description
  • Severity: Critical/High/Medium/Low
  • Problem: What's wrong
  • Evidence: Why this is real (not already fixed, no existing test, etc.)
  • Fix: Concrete suggestion
  • References: OWASP, RFCs, or other standards if applicable

If you find nothing significant, say so - don't invent issues.

Do not make changes - just report findings. I'll decide what to address.

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.