Multi-pass PR bug review — 5 parallel passes, majority voting, independent Opus validation, and resolution rate tracking. Trigger on PR review, bug finding, code review, "review this PR", "check for bugs", "find issues in this PR", or /bug-review. Also trigger on /bug-review:resolve to classify whether findings were fixed at merge time, and /bug-review:report for resolution rate stats. Even if the user just says "review this" while on a PR branch, trigger this skill.
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
bug-review
description
Multi-pass PR bug review — 5 parallel passes, majority voting, independent Opus validation, and resolution rate tracking. Trigger on PR review, bug finding, code review, "review this PR", "check for bugs", "find issues in this PR", or /bug-review. Also trigger on /bug-review:resolve to classify whether findings were fixed at merge time, and /bug-review:report for resolution rate stats. Even if the user just says "review this" while on a PR branch, trigger this skill.
Bug Review v2
Multi-pass PR review agent with 5 parallel review passes, majority voting, independent Opus validation, and resolution rate learning. Posts inline PR comments and optionally generates autofix commits. Tracks whether findings get resolved at merge time and uses that signal to improve future reviews.
When to Apply
User asks to review a pull request for bugs or correctness issues
User runs /bug-review <PR-number-or-URL>
User runs /bug-review:resolve <PR> to classify resolutions after merge
User runs /bug-review:report for resolution rate statistics
User asks for code review focused on logic errors, edge cases, or security
User wants to find bugs in a diff or set of changes
Setup
On first run, verify:
gh CLI is installed and authenticated (gh auth status)
Current directory is a git repo with a GitHub remote
jq is installed (for JSON processing)
bc is installed (for resolution rate calculations; pre-installed on most systems)
Read config.json for configuration (passes, vote threshold, models, category weights).
Workflow Overview
/bug-review <PR>
|
v
Fetch PR context + gather-context.sh
|
v
5 parallel passes (shuffled diffs, Sonnet) --> Aggregate & vote (3/5 majority)
|
v
Independent Opus validator --> Dedup --> Present findings --> Post + store
|
(later, after merge)
v
/bug-review:resolve <PR> --> Classify resolutions --> Update category weights
Command: /bug-review
Step 1: Parse Input & Fetch Context
Parse the PR identifier (number, URL, or branch name)
Check cache: Look for ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA}/bug-review/cache/pr-{N}/ — if cache exists for the same head commit, offer to resume from the last checkpoint
Run scripts/fetch-pr.sh <pr-identifier> to get PR diff + metadata as JSON
Save the diff to a temp file for shuffling
Run scripts/gather-context.sh <changed-files-json> to get prioritized context (callers, types, tests, repo rules)
Read .bug-review.md from repo root if it exists
Save checkpoint: Write context to ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA}/bug-review/cache/pr-{N}/context.json
Categories with weight < 0.1 are suppressed entirely
Rank by final_score descending
If only 1-2 passes found bugs and the others found none, present findings but note they lack consensus.
Save checkpoint: Write voted findings to cache.
Step 4: Independent Validation (Opus)
Launch a separate Agent using validator_model from config.json (default: "opus").
This agent has NOT seen the review passes. It receives only the voted findings and the original code. Read the Validator section in review-passes.md for the prompt.
For each finding, the validator outputs: {id, verdict: "KEEP"|"DISCARD", confidence, reasoning}
Remove DISCARDed findings. Multiply each finding's score by the validator's confidence.
Findings with confidence < 0.5 are shown with a "low confidence" warning.
Save checkpoint: Write validated findings to cache.
Step 5: Dedup Against Prior Reviews
Run scripts/dedup.sh <pr-number> to get existing [bug-review] comments.
Match by location proximity (file + line within +/-10) and category — not text similarity.
Step 6: Present Findings to User
Display a table:
#
Severity
Confidence
File
Line
Title
Votes
For each finding, show full description, trigger scenario, suggested fix, and validator reasoning.
Ask the user (using AskUserQuestion with multiSelect):
Which findings to post as PR comments (default: all)
Which findings to autofix (default: none)
If no findings survived voting + validation: "No bugs found across 5 review passes. The changes look clean."
Step 7a: Post PR Review
Write approved findings to a temporary JSON file, then run:
Scope check: Run git diff --stat — verify only the finding's file was modified and diff is under 20 lines. If exceeded, revert and warn.
Run existing tests if available (npm test, go test ./..., pytest, etc.)
If tests pass: commit with fix: {title} [bug-review]
If tests fail: revert the fix (git checkout -- <file>) and report to user
After all fixes: push to the PR branch
Safety: one commit per fix, run tests between fixes, never force-push, scope-validate every fix.
Command: /bug-review:resolve
Run after a PR is merged to classify whether findings were resolved.
Run scripts/classify-resolutions.sh <pr-number>
Loads stored findings from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA}/bug-review/findings/pr-{N}.json
Checks if PR is merged
For each finding: diffs code between review commit and merge commit
Classifies each as RESOLVED, UNRESOLVED, or INCONCLUSIVE
Updates the stored findings file with resolution data
Display resolution summary to user
If enough data accumulated (10+ findings, 3+ PRs): run scripts/update-weights.sh to adjust category weights
Command: /bug-review:report
Display resolution rate statistics across all tracked PRs.
Run scripts/resolution-report.sh which outputs:
Overall resolution rate
Resolution rate by severity
Resolution rate by category (sorted worst-first to highlight noisy categories)
Suppressed categories (weight < 0.1)
Repo-Specific Rules (.bug-review.md)
Teams can create .bug-review.md at their repo root:
## Focus Areas- Pay special attention to authentication flows
- Check all database queries for SQL injection
## Ignore- Don't flag issues in generated files (*.generated.ts)
- Ignore style-only concerns
## Invariants
- All API endpoints must check req.user before accessing user data
- Database migrations must be reversible
## Severity Overrides
- Treat any auth bypass as CRITICAL regardless of category default
How to Use
Read workflow.md for detailed step-by-step with error handling.
Read review-passes.md for all 5 review pass prompts and the validator.
Read categories.md for bug categories and learned weights.
Related Skills
Consider creating a Runbook skill for investigating bugs found by this review
Consider creating a CI/CD skill to run this review automatically on PR open
