Bug Review

name: bug-review description: |

Triggers: verification, fixes, defects, code-quality, review Systematically uncover and fix bugs using language-specific expertise and reproducible evidence.

Triggers: bug hunting, defect detection, debugging, fix verification, bug fix, regression check, error investigation, defect documentation

Use when: deep bug hunting needed, documenting defects, verifying fixes, systematic debugging required

DO NOT use when: test coverage audit - use test-review instead. DO NOT use when: architecture issues - use architecture-review.

Use this skill for systematic bug hunting with evidence trails. category: code-review tags: [bugs, defects, debugging, code-quality, fixes, verification] tools: [defect-tracker, fix-generator, verification-runner] usage_patterns: - bug-hunting - defect-documentation - fix-preparation - verification-planning complexity: intermediate estimated_tokens: 450 progressive_loading: true dependencies: [pensive:shared, imbue:evidence-logging, imbue:diff-analysis/modules/risk-assessment-framework]

Table of Contents

• Quick Start
• When to Use
• Required TodoWrite Items
• Progressive Loading
• Workflow
• Step 1: Detect Languages (bug-review:language-detected)
• Step 2: Plan Reproduction (bug-review:repro-plan)
• Step 3: Document Defects (bug-review:defects-documented)
• Step 4: Prepare Fixes (bug-review:fixes-prepared)
• Step 5: Verification Plan (bug-review:verification-plan)
• Defect Classification (Condensed)
• Output Format
• Summary
• Defects Found
• [D1] file.rs:142 - Title
• Proposed Fixes
• Fix for D1
• Test Updates
• Evidence
• Best Practices
• Exit Criteria

Bug Review Workflow

Systematic bug identification and fixing with language-specific expertise.

Quick Start

/bug-review

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

When to Use

• Reviewing code for potential bugs
• After receiving bug reports
• Before major releases
• During security audits
• Investigating production issues

Required TodoWrite Items

1. bug-review:language-detected
2. bug-review:repro-plan
3. bug-review:defects-documented
4. bug-review:fixes-prepared
5. bug-review:verification-plan

Progressive Loading

Load additional context as needed:

• Language Detection: @include modules/language-detection.md - Manifest heuristics, expertise framing, version constraints
• Defect Documentation: @include modules/defect-documentation.md - Severity classification, root cause analysis, static analyzers
• Fix Preparation: @include modules/fix-preparation.md - Minimal patches, idiomatic patterns, test coverage

Workflow

Step 1: Detect Languages (bug-review:language-detected)

Identify dominant languages using manifest files (Cargo.toml → Rust, package.json → Node, etc.).

State expertise persona appropriate for the language ecosystem.

Note version constraints (MSRV, Python versions, Node engines).

Progressive: Load modules/language-detection.md for detailed manifest heuristics.

Step 2: Plan Reproduction (bug-review:repro-plan)

Identify reproduction methods:

• Unit/integration test suites
• Fuzzing tools
• Manual reproduction commands

Document exact commands:

cargo test -p core
pytest tests/test_api.py
npm test -- pkg

Verification: Run pytest -v tests/test_api.py to verify.

Capture blockers and propose mocks when dependencies unavailable.

Step 3: Document Defects (bug-review:defects-documented)

Review code line-by-line, logging each bug with:

• File:line reference: Precise location
• Severity: Critical, High, Medium, Low
• Root cause: Logic error, API misuse, concurrency, resource leak
• Impact: What breaks and how

Run static analyzers (cargo clippy, ruff check, golangci-lint, eslint).

Use imbue:evidence-logging for reproducible capture.

Progressive: Load modules/defect-documentation.md for classification details and analyzer commands.

Step 4: Prepare Fixes (bug-review:fixes-prepared)

Draft minimal, idiomatic patches using language best practices:

• Guard clauses (Rust: pattern matching, Python: early returns)
• Resource cleanup (Go: defer, Python: context managers)
• Error propagation (Rust: ?, Go: wrapped errors)

Create tests following Red → Green pattern:

1. Write failing test
2. Apply minimal fix
3. Verify test passes

Progressive: Load modules/fix-preparation.md for language-specific patterns and test strategies.

Step 5: Verification Plan (bug-review:verification-plan)

Execute reproduction steps with fixes applied.

Capture evidence:

• Test output logs
• Benchmark comparisons
• Coverage reports

Document remaining risks using imbue:diff-analysis/modules/risk-assessment-framework.

Assign owners and deadlines for follow-up items.

Defect Classification (Condensed)

Severity: Critical (crash/data loss) → High (broken features) → Medium (degraded UX) → Low (edge cases)

Root Causes: Logic errors | API misuse | Concurrency issues | Resource leaks | Validation gaps

Output Format

## Summary
[Brief scope description]

## Defects Found
### [D1] file.rs:142 - Title
- Severity: High
- Root Cause: Logic error
- Impact: Data corruption possible
- Fix: [description]

## Proposed Fixes
### Fix for D1
[code diff with explanation]

## Test Updates
[new/updated tests with Red → Green verification]

## Evidence
- Commands executed
- Logs and outputs
- External references

Verification: Run pytest -v to verify tests pass.

Best Practices

1. Evidence-based: Every finding has file:line reference
2. Reproducible: Clear steps to reproduce each bug
3. Minimal fixes: Smallest change that fixes the issue
4. Test coverage: Every fix has corresponding test
5. Risk awareness: Document remaining risks with severity scoring

Exit Criteria

• All defects documented with precise references
• Fixes prepared with test coverage verified
• Verification plan includes commands and expected outputs
• Remaining risks assessed and owners assigned

Troubleshooting

Common Issues

Command not found Ensure all dependencies are installed and in PATH

Permission errors Check file permissions and run with appropriate privileges

Unexpected behavior Enable verbose logging with --verbose flag