| name | bug-review |
| description | Bug hunting with evidence trails: find defects, document them, and verify fixes |
Night Market Skill — ported from claude-night-market/pensive. For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin.
Table of Contents
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
When NOT To Use
- Test coverage audit - use test-review instead
Required TodoWrite Items
bug-review:language-detectedbug-review:repro-planbug-review:defects-documentedbug-review:fixes-preparedbug-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:proof-of-work 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:
- Write failing test
- Apply minimal fix
- 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
- Evidence-based: Every finding has file:line reference
- Reproducible: Clear steps to reproduce each bug
- Minimal fixes: Smallest change that fixes the issue
- Test coverage: Every fix has corresponding test
- 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
