bug-echo

name	bug-echo
description	After fixing a bug, find and rate other instances of the same pattern in the codebase. Two modes: described, or inferred from a recent fix with self-validation. Triggers: "run bug-echo", "echo this fix", "scan for similar bugs", "find other instances", "after-fix scan".
license	Apache-2.0
allowed-tools	["Grep","Glob","Read","Write","Edit","Bash","AskUserQuestion","Agent"]
metadata	{"version":"1.2.0","author":"Terry Nyberg, Coffee & Code LLC","tier":"execution","category":"debugging"}

bug-echo

Quick Ref: After a bug fix, identify the pattern, scan the codebase, classify findings, and produce a rated report. Output: .agents/research/YYYY-MM-DD-bug-echo-<slug>.md.

Best invoked after a real fix

bug-echo is most effective when the pattern came from a fix that just shipped. A real fix proves which anti-pattern matters in your specific codebase. Pattern matching after a real fix is dramatically more accurate than pattern matching from a theoretical catalog — the fix is the evidence the pattern is a bug.

The high-leverage loop is surface → verify → generalize, three skills working in sequence:

1. Surface — /unforget (or any tracker) shows you a deferred row you're about to mark Fixed.
2. Verify — Before trusting the closure, confirm the fix is real. /radar-suite focus on <symbol> (or just reading the file) catches stale Open rows where the fix shipped weeks ago and nobody updated the ledger.
3. Generalize — Run /bug-echo with a one-sentence description of what the fix replaced. The output is a rated list of every echo of that anti-pattern across the codebase — including instances that haven't crashed yet but sit under the same runtime conditions.

Bugs that haven't fired yet are the highest-ROI thing in any audit cycle. They cost the same to fix as crashed bugs, but you skip the cost of the crash itself (lost user trust, support tickets, root-cause investigation under deadline). bug-echo is the systematic way to find them.

Companion skills:

• unforget (https://github.com/Terryc21/unforget) — the surface; consolidates deferred work in one file
• radar-suite (https://github.com/Terryc21/radar-suite) — the verifier; confirms the fix is real before bug-echo generalizes

bug-echo also runs standalone when you describe the pattern manually (Step 2A below) — useful when no recent fix exists but you've spotted a shape worth chasing.

---

YOU MUST EXECUTE THIS WORKFLOW. Do not just describe it.

Required output: Every BUG finding MUST include Urgency, Risk of Fixing, Risk of Not Fixing, ROI, Blast Radius, and Fix Effort using the 9-column Issue Rating Table format defined in Step 5. Findings missing any of the six dimensions are invalid.

This skill uses Claude's native tools only. No external scripts or pattern catalogs. AST-grep is optional; if it is installed, prefer it for higher precision on Swift, otherwise fall back to regex via the Grep tool.

---

Pre-flight

Before any scanning work, verify the working environment is sane.

1. Check for uncommitted changes:

   • Run git status --porcelain via Bash.
   • If output is non-empty (uncommitted changes exist), use AskUserQuestion to ask: "There are uncommitted changes. If these are from a prior bug-echo session, commit them first so this run has a clean baseline. Otherwise: commit before scanning, or proceed anyway?" Options: "Commit first", "Proceed (accept risk)", "Cancel". On "Commit first", show files changed and stop with a request that the user commit. On "Cancel", stop. On "Proceed (accept risk)", log "User accepted risk of uncommitted changes" and continue.

2. Note build manifest presence (advisory):

   • Detect via Glob whether Package.swift, xcodeproj, Cargo.toml, package.json, or a similar build manifest exists in the project root. Note the result in the report header. Do NOT run a build — that's the user's responsibility before applying any fix this skill suggests. If no manifest is detected, mention it but continue scanning. This step is advisory metadata for the report, not a gate.

3. Resolve output directory:

   • Default: .agents/research/. This is a convention shared with radar-suite, bug-prospector, and other Coffee & Code audit skills; if your project doesn't already use it, this run creates it via mkdir -p .agents/research/.
   • Override: if the invoking prompt contains output=<path> (e.g., /bug-echo output=docs/audits/), use that path instead. Create it with mkdir -p if missing. Trailing slash is optional.
   • Write the resolved path to a variable used by Step 5's report-generation step. The report header should also record the resolved path so the user can find it.

Freshness rule

Base all findings on the current source tree only. Do not read prior reports in .agents/research/, scratch/, or auto-memory caches as a source of findings. See § Deferred to v1.1+ for the planned recurrence-detection mode that would cross-reference prior reports.

---

Step 1: Determine pattern source

Two modes are supported:

1. User-described: the invoking prompt includes a description of the pattern. Skip to Step 2A.
2. Inferred from recent fix: the session has a recent edit (in conversation context or from git log -p -1). Use AskUserQuestion to confirm. Go to Step 2B.

If both are possible, disambiguate with AskUserQuestion:

Question (header: "Source"): "How should I identify the pattern?"
Options:
- "Infer from my recent fix" (Recommended). Analyze the diff and derive the pattern.
- "I'll describe it". I'll write out the pattern.
- "Cancel". Stop.

See § Deferred to v1.1+ for the planned catalog-selection mode.

---

Step 2A: User-described pattern

Summarize the pattern back to the user:

**Pattern:** [name]
**Anti-pattern:** [what the bad code looks like]
**Correct pattern:** [what it should be]
**Search scope:** [file globs or directories]
**Platforms:** [iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, or "all"]

Conditions form (recommended for multi-condition patterns). Many real bug shapes only fire when 2-3 conditions hold together. Asking the user to articulate them up front produces a sharper scan than free-form prose. Suggested form:

**Condition 1:** [e.g., "Identifiable struct with `let id = UUID()`"]
**Condition 2:** [e.g., "constructed inside a computed `var`/`func` returning `[T]`"]
**Condition 3:** [e.g., "that array feeds a SwiftUI `ForEach` / `List` / `Picker`"]
**Consumer impact:** [why the conditions together produce the bug]

A single-condition pattern (e.g., a deprecated API name) doesn't need this form. Free-form prose is fine. Use the conditions form when the user's description includes "and" twice or more, or when the pattern is shape-based rather than name-based.

Confirm with AskUserQuestion (Yes scan now / Refine / Cancel) before proceeding to Step 3.

---

Step 2B: Infer from recent fix

This is bug-echo's distinctive mode. Execute these steps directly using Bash and native tools:

1. Identify the diff source. In priority order:

   • Staged changes: git diff --cached via Bash.
   • Unstaged changes: git diff via Bash.
   • Most recent commit: git log -p -1 via Bash. Use the first non-empty result. If all are empty, fall back to Step 2A.

2. Parse the diff.

   • Lines starting with - (and not ---) are removed lines (the anti-pattern).
   • Lines starting with + (and not +++) are added lines (the correct pattern).
   • Strip leading whitespace differences when constructing the pattern.

3. Construct a search pattern from the removed lines.

   • Identify the smallest distinctive substring of the removed code that captures the anti-pattern. Avoid matching on comments, formatting, or unrelated changes.
   • If which ast-grep returns a path via Bash, prefer constructing an AST-grep pattern. Otherwise construct a regex compatible with the Grep tool.
   • Keep the pattern focused. A pattern that matches try? would match every optional-try in the codebase; that's not useful. Prefer something like try?\\s+context\\.fetch for a try?-on-fetch fix.

4. Self-validate against the pre-fix file.

   • Determine the file the fix was applied to (from the diff header --- a/path/to/file.swift).
   • Read the pre-fix version using whichever of these matches the diff source:
     • Staged diff (Step 1 used git diff --cached): the pre-fix version is the HEAD baseline. Use git show HEAD:path/to/file.swift.
     • Unstaged diff (Step 1 used git diff): the pre-fix version is HEAD. Use git show HEAD:path/to/file.swift.
     • Most recent commit (Step 1 used git log -p -1): the pre-fix version is HEAD~1. Use git show HEAD~1:path/to/file.swift. If this returns empty because the repo has only one commit (git rev-list --count HEAD returns 1), abort with "no pre-fix baseline available; switch to Step 2A described mode."
     • File renamed in the most recent commit: detect via git log --follow --name-status -1 -- path/to/file.swift. If the R<score> line shows a prior path, use git show HEAD~1:<prior-path> instead.
   • Compare the result against the constructed pattern using Grep.
   • If the pattern matches the pre-fix file: validated. Proceed.
   • If the pattern does not match anything: unvalidated. The constructed pattern doesn't actually find the bug it's supposed to find. Halt and try one of:
     • Construct a different pattern (broader or narrower).
     • Fall back to Step 2A and ask the user to describe the pattern manually.
     • Abort with explanation.
   • Do not scan with an unvalidated pattern. Scanning with a bad pattern produces nonsense findings and erodes user trust.

5. Present the inferred pattern using the Step 2A summary format and confirm with the user before scanning.

The validation step is non-negotiable. If you cannot construct a pattern that matches the pre-fix file, the inference has failed. Do not proceed with a guess.

---

Step 2.5: Recon scout (decide report shape)

Before running the full scan + classify + rate + write ceremony, run the validated pattern once to count candidates. The count decides the response shape. This step prevents the most common over-spend in bug-echo runs: rendering a 200-line rated report on a pattern that turns out to be already localized.

Execute:

1. Run a single Grep with the validated pattern across the project's source tree (use the search scope from Step 2A or the file's directory from Step 2B). No classification yet — just count file:line matches.
2. Exclude the just-fixed site itself. When in Step 2B inference mode, the original-fix file already has the fix applied; if the pattern is constructed from removed lines, it should produce 0 matches there. When in Step 2A described mode, no exclusion needed.
3. Bucket the result:

Candidates	Report shape
0	Emit a one-line note in conversation: "No echoes found. Pattern appears localized to the original fix site." Do NOT write a .agents/research/ report. Stop.
1-5	Lightweight inline report. Classify each match in conversation using Step 4 rules. Render a single Issue Rating Table for confirmed BUGs. Skip the OK / REVIEW / WATCH sections unless something interesting appears. Do NOT write a .agents/research/ file unless the user asks for one.
6+	Full skill flow — proceed to Step 3 and write a .agents/research/ report per Step 5.

Why the buckets matter. Across 18 real bug-echo runs on a 600-file Swift project, 3 found zero real bugs after the full ceremony and another 4 found 1-3. In those 7 cases (~39% of runs), the full .agents/research/ write was over-spend — the report's structure carried more weight than the findings did. The recon-scout step matches output shape to actual signal.

When to override the bucket:

• The user explicitly asked for a written report (/bug-echo write-report or similar invocation). Always write the file.
• The pattern is one the user wants to track across releases (multi-pass cleanup, sweep-style). Always write the file so the next run can reference it. Detect via Step 2A user description ("track this", "sweep", "we'll address in multiple passes") or via the user's prior reports in .agents/research/ (already excluded as a finding source per Freshness rule, but discoverable for this purpose via ls).
• The 1-5 bucket contains a finding the user describes as release-blocking. Promote that finding's writeup to a small report anyway.

If you override, say which bucket the count fell into and why you wrote the report anyway.

State emitted to later steps: recon_candidate_count (integer), recon_report_mode (none / inline / full). Steps 3-5 read these.

---

Step 3: Execute the scan

Note for recon_report_mode = none: skip Step 3-5 entirely. The recon scout already produced the answer. Emit the one-line "no echoes found" note and stop.

Note for recon_report_mode = inline: the recon scout already produced the match list. Skip building file lists from scratch; just read each match site for classification (Step 4) and render a single inline rating table (Step 5 lightweight form). No file write.

Run the validated pattern across the codebase.

1. Build the file list:

   • Use Glob with the pattern's search_scope (default **/*.swift for Swift fixes; adjust by language).
   • For multiplatform Swift codebases, Claude must respect #if os(...) and #if !os(...) blocks during classification. Code inside an excluded platform branch is not flagged.

2. Choose the scan strategy based on file count:

   • Under 50 files: Scan directly using Grep with the pattern.
   • 50 to 500 files: Scan directly. Acceptable performance.
   • Over 500 files: Dispatch sub-agents via the Agent tool. Split files into batches of ~100. Each sub-agent receives the pattern, its file list, and the classification rules from Step 4. Sub-agents return structured findings (matches with file:line context). Aggregate results in the main agent.

3. AST-grep precision (optional, opt-in):

   • If AST-grep is installed and the language is Swift, run AST-grep against the pattern via Bash for higher precision.
   • If AST-grep is not installed or fails, fall back to regex via Grep. Note in the report which tool produced the matches.

4. Language-specific custom analyzers (rare, opt-in):

   • For patterns that neither regex nor AST-grep can express cleanly — e.g., counting scope-direct conditional children at the lexical scope level (see examples/2026-05-03-bug-echo-deep-viewbuilder-crash.md, which uses a custom Python brace-depth analyzer) — a custom analyzer is acceptable. Invoke an external script (Python, Swift, etc.) via the Bash tool. The script must accept a list of paths and emit findings with file:line context the classification step in Step 4 can consume. Note the tool in the report header's "Scan tool:" field.
   • This is rare. Default is Grep; AST-grep is the first fallback; custom analyzers are the second.

---

Step 4: Classify findings

For each match, regardless of how it was found:

1. Read the file at the match location (Read tool), at minimum 20 lines around the match. Multi-platform code may need a wider window to capture surrounding #if blocks.

2. Check for known intentional usages.

   • This is in-context judgment by Claude. Common intentional uses (e.g., try? in test code where failure is acceptable, force-unwrap of an IBOutlet) are classified as OK. See § Deferred to v1.1+ for the planned known-intentional.yaml suppression file.

3. Classify as one of:

   • BUG: matches the anti-pattern, correctness issue confirmed in this context.
   • WATCH: matches the anti-pattern but is contextually near-threshold or already has an architectural defense in place (e.g., the match sits inside a @ViewBuilder split that scoped a known crash, but if more conditions are added the scope could cross back into BUG territory). WATCH findings get a row in the Issue Rating Table with urgency typically ⚪ LOW or 🟢 MEDIUM and a documentation-only suggested fix (e.g., add a comment warning future maintainers about the threshold). Use WATCH when the code is correct today but the path to incorrect is short and foreseeable; use REVIEW when you can't tell.
   • OK: correct usage, no action needed (e.g., as! after a validated is check; strong self capture in a SwiftUI struct view).
   • REVIEW: context unclear, requires human judgment.

Classify each match individually. Do not batch-judge a directory or file.

---

Step 5: Generate report

The report shape depends on recon_report_mode from Step 2.5:

none — no-echo note

Emit ONE LINE in conversation. No file. Suggested template:

No echoes found for [pattern name]. Scanned [N] candidate sites against [search scope]; all are either the original-fix site or non-matches. Pattern appears localized.

Stop. Do not invoke Write.

inline — lightweight 1-5 finding report

Render in conversation, not to a file. Single Issue Rating Table with one row per BUG. Skip OK/REVIEW/WATCH sections unless something interesting appears (and if it does, document it inline, not in a separate section). Suggested shape:

## bug-echo: [pattern name] — [N] echo(es) found

| # | Finding | Urgency | Risk: Fix | Risk: No Fix | ROI | Blast | Effort | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | Open |

**Detail:**
- **[N]. [short description]** at `path/file.swift:[line]`. [Why this is a bug, 1-2 sentences.] Suggested fix: [1-2 sentences.]

**Recon classifications:** [N] BUG, [N] OK (cite line numbers if relevant), [N] REVIEW.

After rendering, proceed to Step 6 (follow-up).

full — full audit report (6+ candidates)

Write the report directly to <output_dir>/YYYY-MM-DD-bug-echo-<slug>.md using the Write tool, where <output_dir> is the path Pre-flight Step 3 resolved (default .agents/research/, or the output=<path> override from the invoking prompt). The slug is a short kebab-case description of the pattern.

Report format (full mode)

# bug-echo Report: [Pattern Name]

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Pattern source:** [user-described | inferred from fix]
**Scan tool:** [ast-grep | regex]
**Files scanned:** [N]
**Pattern validated against pre-fix file:** [yes | n/a for user-described]

## Pattern

**Anti-pattern:** [description]
**Correct pattern:** [description]
**Search regex:** `[pattern]` (or `ast-grep query: ...`)

## Summary

- BUG findings: [N]
- WATCH findings: [N]
- OK findings: [N]
- REVIEW findings: [N]

## BUG Findings

### Issue Rating Table

| # | Finding | Urgency | Risk: Fix | Risk: No Fix | ROI | Blast Radius | Fix Effort | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [short description] | [🔴 CRITICAL / 🟡 HIGH / 🟢 MEDIUM / ⚪ LOW] | [⚪ Low / 🟡 High / 🔴 Critical] | [⚪ Low / 🟢 Medium / 🟡 High / 🔴 Critical] | [🟠 Excellent / 🟢 Good / 🟡 Marginal / 🔴 Poor] | [⚪ 1 file / 🟢 N files / 🟡 N+ files] | [Trivial / Small / Medium / Large] | Open |

The Status column is `Open` on first display. After fixes are applied, the column updates to `Fixed`, `Deferred`, or `Skipped`.

### Detailed findings

For each BUG finding:

[N]. [short description]

path/to/file.swift:[line]

[code snippet, 5-10 lines around the match]

Why this is a bug: [1-2 sentences] Suggested fix: [1-2 sentences]

## WATCH Findings (near-threshold, defensive only)

WATCH findings use the same Issue Rating Table shape as BUG, but typically with documentation-only suggested fixes (e.g., add a comment near the threshold warning future maintainers, or convert the conditional shape to one that scales better). They are not release-blocking; they record what's currently safe but easy to break.

### Issue Rating Table

Same 9 columns as BUG. Urgency is typically ⚪ LOW or 🟢 MEDIUM.

### Detailed findings

For each WATCH finding:

[N]. [short description]

path/to/file.swift:[line]

[code snippet, 5-10 lines around the match]

Why this is WATCH not BUG: [1-2 sentences explaining the architectural defense or near-threshold status] Suggested fix (defensive, not urgent): [1-2 sentences, typically a comment or refactor recommendation]

## OK Findings (intentional, no action needed)

For each OK match, one line:
- `path/to/file.swift:[line]` - [reason it's OK]

## REVIEW Findings (need human judgment)

For each REVIEW match:
- `path/to/file.swift:[line]` - [why context is unclear]

The report is human-readable and self-contained. See § Deferred to v1.1+ for the planned JSON sidecar that would enable downstream skill chaining (e.g., feeding findings into safe-refactor).

---

Step 6: Follow-up

After the report is written, offer guided fixes via AskUserQuestion:

Question (header: "Next"): "How would you like to proceed?"
Options:
- "Fix all BUG findings". Walk through each finding; apply fixes with approval.
- "Fix selected". Choose which findings to fix.
- "Report only". I'll handle fixes manually.

For guided fixes:

1. Present the BUG finding with file:line, code snippet, and suggested fix.

2. Show the proposed Edit (old_string and new_string).

3. Ask for explicit approval before applying.

4. Apply via the Edit tool only after the user confirms.

5. Update the report's Issue Rating Table to mark Status as Fixed, Skipped, or Deferred for each finding processed.

6. After all selected fixes are applied, present an AskUserQuestion:

   Question (header: "Commit"): "Commit these bug-echo fixes now?"
   Options:
   - "Yes, commit as `bug-echo: applied N fixes from <slug>`" (Recommended).
     Stage only the files this skill edited (track them as Step 6.4 applies
     each Edit), then `git commit` via Bash with the message
     `bug-echo: applied <N> fixes from <slug> report`. The commit message
     references the report at `.agents/research/<date>-bug-echo-<slug>.md`
     so the commit and the report are linked.
   - "Leave uncommitted". The user commits later. Note: re-running bug-echo
     will trip Pre-flight's clean-tree check until these changes are
     committed or reverted.
   - "Cancel". Stop without committing.
   

   On "Yes, commit": run git add <file1> <file2> ... for only the files Step 6.4 edited (do not stage anything else), then git commit -m "bug-echo: applied <N> fixes from <slug> report". Verify with git status --porcelain that only the bug-echo-edited files were committed.

Re-display the rating table at the end of the fix session with all Status columns populated.

---

Troubleshooting

Problem	Solution
Diff parsing fails because the recent edit is not a bug fix (rename, comment change, formatting)	Pattern self-validation will fail. Fall back to Step 2A and ask the user to describe the pattern manually.
Too many matches	Narrow the scope by passing a directory in the user's pattern description (e.g., Sources/Features/Auth/).
AST-grep not installed	Use regex via the Grep tool. Install with brew install ast-grep for higher precision on Swift if precision matters.
All matches classified OK	Pattern is localized to the original file. Report zero BUG findings and stop. That's a successful run, not a failed one. Note: Step 2.5's recon scout should now catch this case earlier with the none report mode.
Recon scout shows 0 candidates but I'm sure there are siblings	Your search pattern is too narrow. Broaden it (e.g., drop a suffix qualifier, switch from let to let|var) and re-run Step 2.5. If still 0, the pattern was already localized to the just-fixed site.
Sub-agent dispatch fails	Fall back to sequential scan in the main agent. Slower but functional.
Mixed intentional and buggy matches	Classify each individually using Step 4 rules. Do not batch-judge.
Pattern matches across #if os(...) boundaries	Honor platform conditionals during classification. Code inside the wrong #if block is OK, not BUG.

---

When inference fails: delegate to bug-prospector

If Step 2B's self-validation fails (the inferred pattern doesn't match the pre-fix file) and Step 2A's user-described mode also doesn't apply (no recent fix, no described pattern), bug-echo's job is done — it has no diff to work with. Rather than synthesize a catalog, the skill should suggest the right tool for the next step:

AskUserQuestion with questions:
[
  {
    "question": "I can't infer a pattern from a recent fix or description. Run bug-prospector instead?",
    "header": "Next",
    "options": [
      {"label": "Yes, run bug-prospector", "description": "It uses 7 forward-looking lenses to find bugs without needing a fix to reference"},
      {"label": "I'll describe a pattern manually", "description": "Restart bug-echo in Step 2A described mode"},
      {"label": "Cancel", "description": "Stop"}
    ],
    "multiSelect": false
  }
]

If "Yes, run bug-prospector": instruct the user to invoke /bug-prospector (skill must be installed separately — see github.com/Terryc21/bug-prospector).

bug-prospector and bug-echo cover opposite halves of the bug-finding loop. bug-echo is reactive (after a fix); bug-prospector is forward-looking (before a fix). When bug-echo can't infer, the user's question is "what could go wrong?" not "where else does this live?" — that's bug-prospector's job, not a missing feature in bug-echo.

---

Metadata keys

The frontmatter declares two metadata keys for cross-skill coordination across Coffee & Code's audit family (bug-prospector, radar-suite, workflow-audit, unforget):

• tier — where the skill operates in a typical workflow.

  • execution (used by bug-echo) — runs in response to a concrete event (a fix landed, a release approaches). Produces an artifact (a report, a commit) the user acts on directly.
  • planning — runs before an event to inform a decision (e.g., bug-prospector's forward-looking lenses, unforget's deferred-work survey).
  • review — runs over a finished artifact to grade or audit it (e.g., radar-suite's capstone, app-store-code-review).

• category — the domain the skill targets.

  • debugging (used by bug-echo) — finds bugs, traces causes, or generalizes fixes.
  • Other current values in the family: architecture, release-prep, documentation, ui-audit, data-model.

These keys are descriptive metadata only — no router currently reads them at activation time. They exist so users browsing multiple companion skills can recognize the workflow stage at a glance. If a future router or skill-family index starts reading them, the canonical list lives in the radar-suite README.

---

Deferred to v1.3+

These features are documented for future releases:

• JSON sidecar: machine-readable output alongside the Markdown report, for chaining into downstream skills.
• Recurrence detection: comparing the new report against prior reports in .agents/research/ to detect recurring patterns and suggest architectural fixes.
• known-intentional.yaml user file: explicit suppression of patterns the user has confirmed are intentional, so they don't surface again.
• Multi-language pattern construction beyond Swift: the current inference works for any language (regex from diff is language-neutral), but a future release may add language-specific tuning.

v1.2.0 (2026-06-06)

• Recon scout (Step 2.5): new pre-flight count between pattern validation and full scan. Buckets candidate count into 0 / 1-5 / 6+ and matches report shape to actual signal. Catches the case where the original fix was already localized (one-line note in conversation, no .agents/research/ write) and the case where there are 1-5 sibling instances (lightweight inline report). Reserves the full file-write ceremony for 6+ candidates where the structured report carries its weight. Origin: 18-run retrospective on a 600-file Swift codebase showed ~39% of runs would benefit from a lighter-weight report shape. See recon-scout-rationale.md for the full evidence.
• Conditions form in Step 2A: suggested form for describing multi-condition pattern shapes (e.g., "Identifiable struct + ephemeral constructor + ForEach consumer"). Optional; free-form prose still works. Helps users articulate patterns that only fire when 2-3 conditions hold together — the most common shape for false-positive-prone bugs.