ds-bug-review

name	ds-bug-review
description	Run a strict correctness review of code changes — hunt real bugs, not style or structure. Reports a findings list by default; `--fix` applies the mechanical, unambiguous fixes (logic-changing or uncertain ones stay reported).
disable-model-invocation	true

When invoked, audit the code in scope against one question: will this misbehave at runtime? Not "is it clean" (that's /ds-code-quality-review), not "is it idiomatic" (that's the language reviews) — is it correct. Find the defects that would actually fire: wrong logic, mishandled edges, ignored failures, races, leaks. Every finding must name the condition that triggers it; a bug nobody can reach is noise.

Report-only by default — the output is a prioritized findings list, no edits unless --fix is passed. When a finding is confirmed, /ds-debug root-causes it and /ds-verify-this proves the fix.

Arguments

• Treat positional args as scope (files, directories, globs). With no scope, review the code changed on the current branch.
• --full → review the entire codebase instead of just the branch's changes. Explicit positional scope still wins; --full only replaces the no-scope default.
• Freeform scope ("the parser", "the whole diff") is interpreted reasonably.
• --fix → after reporting, apply only the findings whose fix is mechanical and unambiguous — a single obvious edit, no design judgment. A wrong fix to a correctness finding is worse than none, so anything that changes behavior or rests on an assumption you couldn't verify stays report-only. After applying, re-run any build/test/lint check already in the loop and revert any fix that breaks it — or that touched more than the intended mechanical edit. Close with a summary of what was applied and what was left.

What to hunt

Read the actual execution path — don't pattern-match. Run the tests or a quick repro when it's cheap; a bug you can trigger beats one you can argue about.

1. Logic errors. Inverted or wrong conditionals, off-by-one, wrong operator (< vs <=, && vs ||), wrong comparison, mishandled edge values (empty, zero, negative, max), incorrect arithmetic or unit/sign mistakes.

2. Null / absent values. Dereferences of something that can actually be null/nil/None/undefined on some path; unchecked optionals; missing-key access. Only where the value can be absent — a guard on something never null is the opposite problem.

3. Error and failure paths. Swallowed or ignored errors; the unhappy path left half-done (state mutated, then a later step fails with no rollback → inconsistent state); resources not released on the error path — files, locks, connections, transactions, goroutines/tasks.

4. Boundary and data handling. Integer overflow/truncation, precision loss, unsafe type coercion, encoding/charset assumptions, unbounded input, parsing that trusts its shape.

5. Concurrency. Data races on shared state, check-then-act (TOCTOU), deadlock and lock-ordering, missing synchronization, await/async mistakes, assumptions about ordering or atomicity that don't hold.

6. Control flow & lifecycle. Missing break/return, unintended fallthrough, an early return that skips cleanup, use-after-close/free, double-free/close, uninitialized use, stale or never-invalidated cache.

7. Contract misuse. Wrong argument order, ignored return values that signal failure, off-contract use of a library or API, mismatched units between caller and callee.

Output

A prioritized findings list, ordered by severity (likelihood × impact):

1. Critical — data loss/corruption, crash on a reachable path, or a security-relevant defect
2. Likely-wrong — produces incorrect results under normal use
3. Edge-case — fires only on specific, less-common inputs

For each finding:

• Anchor to file:line.
• State the bug in one line, name the exact condition that triggers it, then the fix.
• Give your confidence. If it rests on an assumption you couldn't verify, say which.

Rules:

• Real defects only: every finding names a reachable path. A "could theoretically be null" with no path to reach it is noise — the false positives that bury the real ones.
• A short, high-confidence list beats a long speculative one.
• With --fix, additionally summarize what was applied vs. left (mechanics in Arguments).