name	function-diff
description	Compare a function between sessions — generate a signature, find it after binary update, compare disassembly, report changes
argument-hint	<signature_or_address> [module]

/probe:function-diff

Compare a function between two sessions (e.g., before and after a binary update). Use a byte signature to relocate the function in the new binary, then compare disassembly to identify what changed.

This skill has two phases:

Phase 1 (before update): Capture the function — disassemble, generate signature, record details
Phase 2 (after update): Re-find the function, compare, report changes

Arguments

signature_or_address (required): Either a byte signature pattern (e.g., "48 89 5C 24 08 57 48 83 EC 20 48 8B D9 E8 ?? ?? ?? ??") or a function address (hex) to capture
module (optional): Module name to search in

Phase 1: Capture (Before Update)

Run this phase while the current binary is loaded. The goal is to record everything needed to find and compare the function later.

1. Locate the function

If given an address:

probe.exe "modules list"

Determine the module and RVA:

RVA = address - module_base

If given a signature:

probe.exe "pattern <signature> <module>"

Verify the signature matches exactly one location. If multiple matches, narrow the search or extend the signature.

2. Disassemble and record

probe.exe "disasm func <function_address>"

Record the full disassembly. Pay attention to:

Total instruction count
Function size (last address - first address + last instruction length)
String references (LEA instructions with RIP-relative operands)
Call targets (CALL instructions — record the target addresses)
Notable constants (immediate values, magic numbers)

For each string reference, read the string:

probe.exe "read_string <resolved_lea_target>"

For each call target, check if it has a name:

probe.exe "disasm <call_target> 3"

3. Generate the signature

If not already provided as a signature:

probe.exe "sig <function_address> 32 <module>"

Test uniqueness:

probe.exe "pattern <signature> <module>"

If not unique, extend:

probe.exe "sig <function_address> 64 <module>"

4. Record the capture

Store this information (present it to the user to save):

Function Capture:
  Name:      <description or label>
  Module:    <module_name>
  Address:   0x<addr> (RVA: 0x<rva>)
  Size:      <N> bytes (<M> instructions)
  Signature: <pattern>

  Disassembly: (full listing)
  Strings:     (list with offsets)
  Callees:     (list with offsets)

Tell the user: "Save this capture. After the binary updates, run this skill again with the signature to compare."

Phase 2: Compare (After Update)

Run this phase after the binary has been updated (new build, game patch, etc.). The module will be loaded at a different base address and the function may have changed.

5. Relocate the function

probe.exe "pattern <signature> <module>"

If found (1 match): The function exists at a new address. Proceed to comparison.

If found (multiple matches): The signature is no longer unique — the update added similar code. Try:

Use a longer portion of the original signature
Cross-reference with a known string — if the function referenced a specific string, find that string first, then check which signature match is near the string's xref

If not found (0 matches): The function was significantly modified. Strategies:

a. Try a sub-signature — use just the first 16 bytes of the original signature (the prologue is less likely to change):

probe.exe "pattern <first_16_bytes_of_sig> <module>"

b. Search by string reference — if the function referenced a unique string, find that string and trace xrefs:

probe.exe "strings find <unique_string> <module>"
probe.exe "strings xref <string_addr> <module>"

c. Search by export name — if the function was an export, check if the export still exists:

probe.exe "pe exports <module>"

d. Search by RTTI — if the function was a virtual method, the class likely still exists:

probe.exe "rtti vtable <class_name> <module>"

Check the same vtable index.

e. The function was removed or completely rewritten — report this finding. The update fundamentally changed this code path.

6. Disassemble the new version

probe.exe "disasm func <new_function_address>"

Record the new disassembly with the same level of detail as the capture.

7. Compare the two versions

Analyze the differences between the captured (old) and current (new) disassembly:

Structural comparison:

Same instruction count? If different, instructions were added or removed.
Same function size? Growth suggests new logic; shrinkage suggests simplification or removal.
Same prologue? If different, the calling convention or stack usage changed.

Instruction-level comparison:

Walk through both listings instruction by instruction. Ignore expected differences:

RIP-relative displacements — always change between builds (module base moves)
CALL targets — absolute addresses change; compare the target function identity instead
Stack offsets — may shift if local variables were added/removed

Flag actual differences:

New instructions — code was added (new logic, new checks, new branches)
Removed instructions — code was removed (simplification, bug fix, feature removal)
Changed opcodes — different instruction at the same logical position (optimization, bug fix)
Changed constants — immediate values changed (struct offset changes, enum value changes)
Changed branch targets — control flow restructured
New string references — new error messages or log text added
Removed string references — old error handling removed

Semantic comparison:

For each changed region, determine the semantic meaning:

New cmp/test + jcc — a new conditional check was added
New call — a new function is being called (what does it do?)
Removed call — a function call was dropped (inlined? removed?)
Changed offset in field access ([rcx+0x354] became [rcx+0x358]) — struct layout changed

8. Check struct offset changes

If field access offsets changed (e.g., [rcx+0x354] in the old version vs [rcx+0x358] in the new), this indicates a struct layout change. A field was inserted before this offset, pushing everything down. Document:

Struct offset shift detected:
  Old: [rcx+0x354] (m_iHealth)
  New: [rcx+0x358] (m_iHealth — shifted by +4)
  Cause: 4 bytes inserted before offset 0x354

9. Generate new signature

probe.exe "sig <new_function_address> 32 <module>"

Test and verify the new signature:

probe.exe "pattern <new_signature> <module>"

10. Label the updated function in GUI

curl -s -X POST http://localhost:9996 -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{
  "action":"batch","actions":[
    {"action":"activity","status":"working","message":"Labeling updated function..."},
    {"action":"store","store":"label","method":"setLabel","args":["0x<new_addr>","<function_name> (updated)"]},
    {"action":"navigate","tab":"disasm","address":"0x<new_addr>"},
    {"action":"activity","status":"idle","message":"Done — function diff complete"}
  ]
}'

11. Report

Function Diff: CBaseEntity::TakeDamage
=======================================

Old: 0x7FFB2194FE40 (client.dll + 0x3BFE40) — 96 instructions, 0x1A0 bytes
New: 0x7FFB21A5F300 (client.dll + 0x4CF300) — 102 instructions, 0x1C8 bytes
     (+6 instructions, +0x28 bytes)

Signature:
  Old: 48 89 5C 24 08 57 48 83 EC 20 48 8B D9 E8 ?? ?? ?? ??
  New: 48 89 5C 24 08 57 48 83 EC 30 48 8B D9 E8 ?? ?? ?? ??
       (stack frame grew from 0x20 to 0x30)

Changes:
  1. [+0x1A] NEW: cmp dword ptr [rcx+0x3FC], 0
              NEW: jz +0x12
     Analysis: New null/zero check on a field at +0x3FC (new field?)

  2. [+0x42] CHANGED: mov eax, [rcx+0x354]  -->  mov eax, [rcx+0x358]
     Analysis: m_iHealth offset shifted from 0x354 to 0x358 (+4 bytes)

  3. [+0x8A] NEW: call 0x7FFB21B02000
     Analysis: New function call added — appears to be a validation check
              (target function references string "damage validation failed")

  4. [+0xC0] REMOVED: call 0x7FFB2190A000
     Analysis: Old logging call removed (was calling LogMessage with "damage applied")

Struct Offset Changes:
  m_iHealth:    0x354 -> 0x358 (+4)
  m_iMaxHealth: 0x350 -> 0x354 (+4)
  m_lifeState:  0x35C -> 0x360 (+4)
  Likely cause: 4-byte field inserted before 0x350

New Signature: 48 89 5C 24 08 57 48 83 EC 30 48 8B D9 E8 ?? ?? ?? ??

Single-session mode

If you're not comparing across sessions but want to compare two similar functions in the same binary (e.g., overridden virtual function in base vs derived class):

Disassemble both functions
Skip the signature/relocation steps
Go straight to step 7 (comparison)
Focus on what the derived class adds or changes vs the base class

Tips

Prologue changes are significant — they indicate stack frame or calling convention changes
Offset shifts in struct field access (e.g., +0x354 -> +0x358) almost always mean a field was inserted/removed from the struct definition
New conditional branches often indicate new gameplay checks, anti-cheat additions, or bug fixes
Removed calls might mean a feature was disabled or a function was inlined
The signature is your anchor — always generate and save a signature during Phase 1
String references are stable anchors — even if the code changes significantly, the strings it references usually stay the same
vtable index is very stable — for virtual functions, the vtable slot number rarely changes between updates (but it can happen if a new virtual function is inserted in a base class)
For game reverse engineering, run Phase 1 before every major patch, and Phase 2 immediately after to catch all offset and logic changes