bug-fix
Skill192 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub
Bug fix workflow. Use when: fixing bugs, resolving issues, regression fixes. Not for: new features (use feature-dev), understanding code (use code-explore). Output: fix + regression test + review gate.
- Commits and pushes
25 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- paureis/pau-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- eugenelim/agent-ready-repotheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- JosefGisis/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- callmeradical/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- GangJaeYu/harness_loop_full_koreantheir own version, first seen Oct 29, 2026
- phanijapps/memextheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use security-checklists, work-loop 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.
eugenelimSkillsecurity-checklists
Progressive-disclosure security-depth modules for the security-reviewer. Holds ten boundary-keyed checklists (access-control, authn-session, injection, path-and-file, secrets-and-crypto, outbound-ssrf, supply-chain, config-misconfig, exceptional-conditions, llm-agent) as references/, each anchored on a current standard (OWASP Top 10:2025, ASVS 5.0, API Security Top 10:2023, Proactive Controls 2024, CWE Top 25, OWASP LLM Top 10:2025). The work-loop's orchestrator loads only the boundary-matching modules and inlines them into the security-reviewer's brief; the subagent never self-discovers this skill. Not a reviewer prompt itself — it is the depth library the reviewer reasons from.
Also in 3 projects that use this
eugenelimSkillwork-loop
Use this skill whenever you're implementing a non-trivial change — a feature, a multi-file bug fix, a refactor, a migration, a framework or dependency upgrade, a schema or API change, performance work, an infrastructure or build-system edit, or anything spec-driven. It enforces the project's plan → execute → self-review → fix loop with mechanical gates (lint, typecheck, tests) and adversarial review. Default to this skill for any task larger than a one-line edit.
Also in 3 projects that use this
smileynetSkillimplementation
Game-specific coding guidance during implementation. Use when implementing game code, coding game mechanics, building game loop, setting up state machine, game architecture during development, writing game systems, structuring game update logic, or adding game input handling. Covers game loop setup, state management, input handling, frame budget, entity architecture, delta time.
Also in 3 projects that use this
dhzrxSkillprd-generator
Generate comprehensive Product Requirements Documents with AI PM best practices for new features and products
Also in 3 projects that use this
DonTiziSkillnew-feature
Plan new features/integrations following SOLID principles. Analyzes codebase architecture, researches official documentation and best practices, designs extensible solution, and creates comprehensive GitHub issue with implementation blueprint.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SvampenSkillinit-project
Generates a tailored .claude/project-config.md for the current project. Asks about project type, quality check commands, documentation paths, insight tags, and review strictness.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +1 more from eugenelim
Other versions25 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow★ 192100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 24
- techygarg/lattice★ 209same name
- EmeaAppGbb/spec2cloud★ 100same name
- nwiizo/claudelytics★ 88same name
- eugenelim/agent-ready-repo★ 28same name
- Fadi88/one-man-startup★ 16same name
- eugenelim/llm-wiki-kit★ 12same name
- mae616/ai-template★ 9same name
- ramboz/jig★ 7same name
- crgarcia12/Liliput★ 4same name
- GangJaeYu/harness_loop_full_korean★ 4same name
14 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 repository102 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adrSkill
- agentctl-setupSkill
- architectureSkill
- askSkill
- best-practicesSkill
- bump-versionSkill
- check-coverageSkill
- claude-healthSkill
- code-exploreSkill
- code-investigateSkill
- codex-architectSkill
- codex-brainstormSkill
- codex-cli-reviewSkill
- codex-code-reviewSkill
- codex-explainSkill
- codex-implementSkill
- codex-review-branchSkill
- codex-review-docSkill
- codex-review-fastSkill
- codex-reviewSkill
- codex-securitySkill
- codex-setupSkill
- codex-test-genSkill
- codex-test-reviewSkill
- contract-decodeSkill
- create-prSkill
- create-requestSkill
- de-ai-flavorSkill
- debugSkill
- deep-analyzeSkill
- deep-exploreSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dep-auditSkill
- deploy-flowSkill
- dev-security-auditSkill
- doc-refactorSkill
- doc-reviewSkill
- epic-mergeSkill
- feasibility-studySkill
- feature-devSkill
- feature-verifySkill
- fp-briefSkill
- generate-runnerSkill
- gh-stackSkill
- git-investigateSkill
- git-profileSkill
- install-hooksSkill
- install-rulesSkill
- install-scriptsSkill
- issue-analyzeSkill
- jiraSkill
- load-pr-reviewSkill
- merge-prepSkill
- necessity-auditSkill
- next-stepSkill
- obsidian-cliSkill
- op-sessionSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- plan-reviewSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 18 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 49
Before fixing: if the bug maps to a feature under docs/features/, read docs/features/<key>/intent-<key>.md when it exists — a fix that …
- Very specific: line 76
Follow @rules/testing.md for conventions (AAA, naming, evidence model).
- Very specific: line 77
Follow @rules/testing-project.md for project-specific overrides.
- Very specific: line 124
If code changes after the latest ✅ Tests sufficient gate (e.g., fixes from code review), rerun /verify then /codex-test-review --continue …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 18 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
Bug Fix Skill
Trigger
- Keywords: bug, issue, fix, error, broken, failing
When NOT to Use
- New feature development (use feature-dev)
- Just want to understand code (use code-explore)
- Pure test-only tasks without feature changes (use
/codex-test-reviewdirectly)
Prohibited Actions
❌ git add | git commit | git push — per @rules/git-workflow.mdThis skill fixes bugs but does not commit. /precommit is a quality gate only. To commit, offer the menu per rules/git-workflow.md § Proactive Offer — a commit option on any real branch, a push option only where review-state.js offer allows one — and invoke /smart-commit --execute on selection; never print the command for the user to copy.
Workflow
Investigate → Locate → Fix → Test + Review → Precommit Gate
│ │ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
gh issue Grep Edit /verify /precommit
/git-investigate Read tests /codex-test-review
/codex-review-fastagentctl (optional)
At the start, run node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/agentctl-setup/scripts/agentctl-setup.js" status
once. Only when state is installed/enabled, offer to draft a task proposal from the ticket per
@skills/agentctl-setup/references/workflow-integration.md — the user accepts it with
/agentctl accept; any other state, say nothing about agentctl and continue. It is never a gate:
every review and precommit obligation in this skill is unchanged, and its evidence is context
beside a verdict, never the verdict.
Phase 1: Investigation
Before fixing: if the bug maps to a feature under docs/features/, read
docs/features/<key>/intent-<key>.md when it exists — a fix that contradicts one of its INV-*
invariants or Non-goals stops and asks the user (cite the line). No identifiable feature →
nothing to load; proceed.
| Source | Action |
| GitHub Issue | gh issue view <number> |
| Error message | Grep("error message") |
| Code history | /git-investigate |
Output root cause analysis:
- Problem location:
src/<module>/<file>:<line> - Root cause:
<specific cause> - Impact scope:
<which features are affected>
Phase 2: Fix
| Principle | Description |
| Minimal changes | Only modify what is necessary |
| No new issues | Confirm changes don't affect other features |
| Design preserved | Choose the smallest root-cause fix that keeps current responsibilities. If the fix moves a boundary or adds an abstraction, say which shape you chose and why — "direct fix; existing design retained" is the expected common answer |
Phase 3: Add Regression Test ⚠️
Follow @rules/testing.md for conventions (AAA, naming, evidence model).
Follow @rules/testing-project.md for project-specific overrides.
Bug fixes must have tests at the corresponding level:
| Bug Type | Required | Recommended |
| Logic error | Unit | - |
| Service issue | Unit | Integration |
| API issue | Integration | E2E |
| Cross-service/data flow | Integration | E2E |
| User flow | E2E | - |
Phase 4: Verify + Review
Step 1: Run tests
/verify → all tests pass?
Yes → Step 2
No → fix failures → re-run /verifyStep 2: Test adequacy review (mandatory for code changes)
/codex-test-review → ✅ Tests sufficient?
Yes → Step 3
No → close gaps (Step 2a) → /codex-test-review --continue <threadId>Step 2a: Gap closure
| Gap Type | Remediation |
| Unit test missing | /codex-test-gen → write tests → /verify |
| Integration/E2E missing | /post-dev-test → write tests → /verify |
Step 3: Code review (auto-loop)
/codex-review-fast → ✅ Ready?
Yes → Precommit Gate
No → fix issues → re-run /codex-review-fast (auto-loop)Freshness rule
If code changes after the latest ✅ Tests sufficient gate (e.g., fixes from code review), rerun /verify then /codex-test-review --continue <threadId> before proceeding to precommit gate.
Review Loop
MUST re-review after fix until PASS (per @rules/auto-loop.md)
Fix → Review → Issues found → Fix again → ... → ✅ Pass → Next stepDoc Sync
Doc Sync is governed by @rules/auto-loop.md (behavior-layer rule). After precommit pass, triggers conditionally when changes map to docs/features/.
Output
## Bug Fix Report
- **Root cause**: <analysis>
- **Fix**: <description of changes>
- **Regression test**: <test result>
- **Gate**: ✅ Fixed / ⛔ Needs further investigationVerification Checklist
- Root cause identified and documented
- Regression test written at appropriate level
- All tests pass (
/verify) - Test adequacy reviewed (
/codex-test-review) - Code review passed (
/codex-review-fast✅ Ready) - Precommit passed (
/precommit✅ All Pass) - No
git add/commit/pushexecuted
Examples
Input: Fix issue #123 - calculation error
Action: gh issue view → locate → fix → write Unit Test → /verify → /codex-test-review → /codex-review-fast → /precommitInput: API returning 500 error
Action: Grep error → read code → fix → write Integration Test → /verify → /codex-test-review → /codex-review-fast → /precommitDoes 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.

