bisect
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Find the exact commit that introduced a bug or regression using automated git bisect. Use when something used to work and doesn't anymore, and the user wants the guilty commit — especially from a plain-English symptom like "scrolling got janky sometime last month.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- paultyng/skill-issuetheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- tejastn10/workbenchtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- sirius-db/siriustheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- ClickHouse/ClickHousetheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- ohm41321/luciazerotheir own version, first seen Aug 12, 2026
- lkc-studio/claude-skill-bisecttheir own version, first seen Jul 28, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- ClickHouse/ClickHouse★ 51ksame name
- sirius-db/sirius★ 1.1ksame name
- paultyng/skill-issue★ 8same name
- ohm41321/luciazero★ 6same name
- Pradnyeshp/Claude-Skills★ 2same name
- anuq/my-claude-skills★ 1same name
- lkc-studio/claude-skill-bisect★ 1same name
- tejastn10/workbench★ 1same name
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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Prefer the narrowest observable signal: a failing test, a grep on output, an HTTP probe, an exit code — not "run the app and look."
- Distinctive: line 16
If the symptom is flaky, make the oracle run the check N times and fail on any failure (or majority, if the flake is inverse).
- Distinctive: line 23
Commit doesn't build for unrelated reasons → git bisect skip.
- Very specific: line 26
If bisect run can't work (manual-only check), fall back to stepping manually and asking the user to observe only when unavoidable — …
- Distinctive: line 30
Never stop at the commit hash.
- Distinctive: line 38
Always git bisect reset and remove the worktree, even after failure.
- Very specific: line 42
Merge-heavy history: if the guilty commit is a merge, bisect the merged branch's commits (git bisect handles this, but explain the result …
“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.
Files
Bisect
Something used to work. Your job is to hand back the exact commit that broke it, with an explanation of why it broke. git bisect does the search; your job is building a reliable oracle and driving the machine.
Phase 1 — Build the oracle
Translate the symptom into an executable check script that exits 0 when the behavior is good and non-zero when it's bad. This script is everything — a wrong oracle bisects to a wrong commit with total confidence.
- Prefer the narrowest observable signal: a failing test, a grep on output, an HTTP probe, an exit code — not "run the app and look."
- Validate the oracle before trusting it: it must fail at the suspected-bad ref (usually HEAD) and pass at some older ref. If the user can't name a good ref, probe backwards — last release tag, then earlier tags/dates — until the check passes. No verified good/bad pair, no bisect.
- If the symptom is flaky, make the oracle run the check N times and fail on any failure (or majority, if the flake is inverse). State the confidence tradeoff.
Phase 2 — Drive the machine
- Work in a separate worktree (
git worktree add) so the user's working directory is untouched. git bisect start <bad> <good>, thengit bisect run <oracle>.- Handle history friction:
- Commit doesn't build for unrelated reasons →
git bisect skip. - Build/setup steps changed across history → make the oracle detect and adapt (e.g. try both old and new install commands), or bisect in stages across the boundary.
- Dependencies must match each era — reinstall per checkout if lockfiles change.
- Commit doesn't build for unrelated reasons →
- If
bisect runcan't work (manual-only check), fall back to stepping manually and asking the user to observe only when unavoidable — automate everything else.
Phase 3 — The verdict
Never stop at the commit hash. Deliver:
- The guilty commit — hash, author, date, message.
- The mechanism — read the diff and explain how this change produces the observed symptom. If the connection isn't obvious, trace it until it is; a bisect result you can't explain is a suspect, not a conviction.
- The options — clean revert (test whether it reverts cleanly and whether the symptom disappears), or a forward fix sketch, with a recommendation.
Cleanup
Always git bisect reset and remove the worktree, even after failure. Leave no machinery behind.
Edge cases
- Merge-heavy history: if the guilty commit is a merge, bisect the merged branch's commits (
git bisecthandles this, but explain the result carefully). - The oracle passes everywhere / fails everywhere: the good/bad pair was wrong or the symptom is environmental (data, config, dependency drift — not the repo's history). Say so; that's a real answer.
- Very expensive checks: estimate steps first (
log --oneline good..bad | wc -l→ log₂) and tell the user the cost before starting.
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
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.

