Find Bugs V2

Find Bugs

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/find-bugs from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

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

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Phase 1: Complete Input Gathering, Phase 2: Attack Surface Mapping, Phase 3: Security Checklist (check EVERY item for EVERY file), Phase 4: Verification, Phase 5: Pre-Conclusion Audit, Output Format.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• You need a review focused on bugs, security issues, or risky code changes.
• The task involves auditing the current branch diff rather than implementing new behavior.
• You want a structured review process with checklist-driven verification against changed files.
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: 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.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: 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

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @find-bugs-v2 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @find-bugs-v2 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @find-bugs-v2 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @find-bugs-v2 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/find-bugs, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @00-andruia-consultant - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @00-andruia-consultant-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: 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

Imported: 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?

Imported: 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

Imported: 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

Imported: 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.

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.