bughunt

name	bughunt
description	Adversarial, hotspot-driven bug-hunting workflow for bugs, pain points, and inefficiencies across project types (iOS, macOS, web, services, terminal tools). A zero-dependency toolkit ranks hotspots, agents inspect risk areas through 13 analysis lenses, a mandatory skeptic pass refutes false positives, and strict merge gates can enforce verification and coverage in CI. Findings are fingerprinted, deduped, baseline-diffed, and rendered to markdown/HTML/SARIF with CI exit codes. Report-only by default. Use when the user invokes /bughunt, asks to find hidden bugs, audit code for defects, hunt pain points or inefficiencies, do a deep code review, gate CI on findings, or hunt for what tests miss.
disable-model-invocation	true
version	2026-06-07.1
platforms	["language-agnostic","Apple","Web","Systems","Backend","CLI","Android",".NET","PHP","SQL","IaC"]
primary_use_cases	["Hunt an entire codebase for hidden defects, not just the current diff","Surface pain points and inefficiencies — perf, DX friction, UX gaps, supply-chain, data risk","Deep adversarial code review of a module, feature, or risky change","Produce a ranked, evidence-backed, reproducible report; baseline-diff and gate CI on it"]

Bughunt

An offensive, hotspot-driven bug-hunting workflow. Where the autoreview skill (/review) is a defensive gate on your own diff, bughunt assumes the code is guilty and goes looking for hidden defects in the riskiest parts of the target with explicit coverage reporting.

Read this hub first, run recon, then open only the spokes your hunt plan selects.

Mission

Find the bugs that tests, linters, and a tired reviewer miss — and make each claim carry evidence. The output is a ranked, evidence-backed report, not a vibe. Default behavior is report-only: hunt, document, hand fixing to a human or the autoreview skill (/review). Never edit product code unless the user asks.

What makes this powerful (not just a checklist)

1. A deterministic spine — a bundled zero-dependency toolkit (bughunt.py) ranks hotspots by churn × complexity × boundary × test-gap, surfaces pain signals (aged TODOs, config drift, risky deps), and owns structured findings: fingerprint, dedupe, suppress, baseline-diff, and render to markdown/HTML/SARIF with CI exit codes. See tooling.md. Degrades to a pure-markdown pipeline when python3 is absent.
2. Breadth via fan-out — split the target into a grid of (lens × hotspot) cells and run them as independent parallel hunters, so every risky area is examined through every relevant lens. A capability ladder runs the same phases on whatever fan-out machinery the tool has — the Workflow tool, an external coding-CLI fan-out (Composer 2.5 / Grok via cursor-agent, the fast variant), parallel Tasks, or a sequential walk. See orchestration.md.
3. Depth via specialized lenses + platform catalogs — 13 lenses, each a distinct adversarial discipline (bugs, perf, DX, UX, supply-chain, data safety); each platform catalog encodes that ecosystem's specific footguns.
4. Signal via mandatory verify + triage — a skeptic pass tries to refute every finding before it's reported (verification.md); survivors are confidence-rated, cross-validated, and reproduced by triage.

First principle: signal over noise

A short list of real, reproducible bugs beats a long list of maybes. Every reported finding names its evidence (file:line + trace + trigger + impact) and its confidence. Speculative items are quarantined in their own section — never mixed in. Before reporting anything, try to kill it (see the false-positive filter in triage). If it survives, report it.

Operating principles

• Assume guilt. The code is wrong until you've checked. Read it for what it does, not what it's supposed to do.
• Evidence-first. No file:line + trace + trigger + impact → it's a question, not a finding.
• Do not overstate proof. Static skeptic-upheld findings are Probable unless reproduced or traced beyond plausible refutation. Runtime/property-test proof is what earns Confirmed.
• Report, don't edit. This skill is read-only by default. Surface and prove bugs; hand fixing to a human or the autoreview skill (/review). Only edit code if the user asks.
• Scope before you scale. On a large/unfamiliar repo, do recon and confirm scope/budget with the user before launching a deep hunt (see recon-and-scoping.md).
• Be honest about coverage. Always state what you examined and what you did not.
• Enforce verification and coverage in CI. ci runs must merge with --require-verified --require-coverage --strict so skipped skeptic verdicts or missing coverage metadata fail instead of becoming trusted findings.
• Don't invent bugs. A clean result is a valid, valuable outcome — see When the hunt finds nothing below. Never pad the report to look productive.

Modes

Mode	When	How
Quick scan	Small target, a single file/module, or a diff; minutes	Single-agent sweep; pick 2–3 lenses + the platform catalog
Deep hunt	Whole codebase; the flagship mode	Full recon → fan-out across the (lens × hotspot) grid
Targeted hunt	User names a module/feature/file	Recon scoped to it → fan-out within scope

Default to the mode the request implies; ask only if genuinely ambiguous.

The hunt loop

Execute in order. Spokes carry the detail.

Step	Do	Spoke
1	Recon & pre-pass — detect platform, run the deterministic pre-pass (census/hotspots/signals/deps), map trust boundaries, build the hunt plan	recon-and-scoping.md, tooling.md
2	Fan-out — build the (lens × hotspot) grid, dispatch hunters via the capability ladder (Workflow / parallel Tasks / sequential)	orchestration.md
3	Hunt — each hunter runs one lens over one area using the relevant platform catalog; returns evidence as JSON	lens + platform spokes below
4	Verify (mandatory) — a skeptic pass tries to refute every candidate before it counts as a finding	verification.md
5	Merge & cross-validate — bughunt.py merge: fingerprint, dedupe, cross-validate, suppress, baseline-diff	orchestration.md, tooling.md
6	Triage — severity × confidence (+ impact rubric), filter false positives, build minimal repros	triage
7	Confirm (optional) — prove high-value findings dynamically or at runtime; in parallel isolated sandboxes via the E2B rung	confirm.md, fuzz, verify
8	Report — bughunt.py render the ranked markdown/HTML/SARIF; hand fixing off	tooling.md, triage report layout

Toolkit & capability ladder

The hunt has a deterministic spine and a portable execution model, so it works the same on Claude Code, Cursor, or Codex.

• Toolkit — bughunt.py (zero-dependency, stdlib python3) under scripts/ does the non-judgment work: rank hotspots, mine pain signals, audit deps, and fingerprint/dedupe/suppress/baseline-diff/render the findings. The automated dependency support is strongest for npm/Python-style manifests; other ecosystems rely more on platform catalogs and agent inspection. Always probe python3 --version first. If it's missing, run the markdown fallback — rank by the recon heuristics, keep findings in markdown, skip SARIF; nothing in the toolkit is required for the hunt to work.
• Capability ladder (orchestration.md) — same five phases (Recon → Hunt → Verify → Merge → Report) on every rung: (A) invoke the shipped hunt-workflow.js when the Workflow tool is available; (A-CLI) the shipped hunt-cursor.mjs to fan out Composer 2.5 / Grok hunters via cursor-agent — the fast variant, and the highest rung available inside Cursor; (B) parallel Tasks on standard Claude Code; (C) a sequential walk on single-agent tools. Verify is mandatory on every rung, and always on a strong reasoner even when hunters run on a fast model.

Example: one trip through the loop (condensed)

A small Node API repo, deep hunt:

1. Recon — detects Express + Postgres. Trust boundaries: HTTP routes, SQL. Hotspots by churn + boundary: routes/invoices.js (recently changed, near auth + SQL, no tests), lib/pricing.js (money math), db/query.js.
2. Fan-out grid — dispatch hunters: auth-access × routes/invoices.js, taint × routes/invoices.js, logic-correctness × lib/pricing.js, resource-performance × db/query.js. Platform catalog: web.
3. Hunters report (evidence-backed candidates):
   • auth-access: GET /invoices/:id loads by id with no ownership check → IDOR.
   • logic-correctness: discount applied after tax in applyDiscount() → wrong total.
   • resource-performance: invoice list issues one query per line item → N+1.
4. Merge & cross-validate — three distinct findings, no dupes; taint hunter found nothing new (SQL is parameterized — correctly not reported).
5. Triage — IDOR = High-Confirmed (wrote a failing test: user A reads user B's invoice); discount = High-Probable (traced values: $100 + 10% tax then −10% = $99, expected $90); N+1 = Medium-Probable.
6. Report — three findings, ranked, each with repro/trace; recommend fixing then /review. No product-code edits made; .bughunt/ report/state files may be written.

When the hunt finds nothing

A clean result is a real outcome — report it honestly, never invent findings. Emit a short report stating: what was examined (which lenses × hotspots), what was deliberately out of scope, your confidence level, and any Speculative items worth a human glance. "I hunted X with lenses Y and found no confirmed defects; here's the coverage" is a valid deliverable.

Lens index (analysis disciplines)

Read on demand — only the lenses the hunt plan selects.

Lens	Hunts for
lens-dataflow-taint.md	Untrusted input reaching dangerous sinks: injection, deserialization, path traversal, SSRF, secret leakage
lens-state-lifecycle.md	Illegal state transitions, resource/handle leaks, init/teardown order, idempotency, cache invalidation
lens-concurrency.md	Data races, TOCTOU, deadlock, reentrancy, async ordering & cancellation, shared mutable state
lens-boundaries-numeric.md	Off-by-one, overflow/truncation, precision, null/optional, empty/limit cases, encoding, time/DST
lens-error-failure.md	Swallowed errors, fail-open, partial writes, missing rollback, retry/timeout/cancel correctness
lens-contract-spec.md	Code vs docs/tests/types/comments, violated invariants, dead/contradictory logic, copy-paste divergence
lens-auth-access.md	Broken authn/authz, IDOR, privilege escalation, tenant isolation, session/token/crypto/secret misuse
lens-logic-correctness.md	Internally wrong logic: inverted conditions, wrong operators/formulas, branch/case errors, wrong variable used
lens-resource-performance.md	O(n²)+ complexity, N+1 queries, unbounded growth, memory blowups, DoS amplification at scale
lens-dx-pain.md	Developer-experience friction: aged TODO/FIXME debt, flaky-test patterns, slow/serial scripts, config drift, unhelpful errors
lens-product-ux.md	User-facing pain: missing loading/empty/error states, swallowed feedback, dead feature flags, friction & dead ends
lens-dependency-supply.md	Supply-chain risk: vulnerable/unpinned/abandoned deps, lockfile drift, typosquats, unsafe install/CI
lens-data-migration.md	Data safety: destructive/irreversible migrations, unsafe backfills, schema/code skew, serialization drift

Platform index (ecosystem footguns)

Pick the one(s) recon identifies.

Platform	Catalog
Apple — Swift/ObjC (iOS, macOS)	platform-apple.md
Web — JS/TS, browser, Node	platform-web.md
Systems — C/C++/Rust/Go	platform-systems.md
Backend + CLI — Python/Ruby/Java + terminal tools	platform-backend-cli.md
Other (Android/Kotlin, .NET/C#, PHP, Flutter/RN, SQL, IaC) + generic fallback for any unlisted language	platform-other.md

Spoke index

File	Contents
recon-and-scoping.md	Deterministic pre-pass, platform detection, trust boundaries, hotspot ranking, hunt plan
orchestration.md	(Lens × hotspot) grid, hunter prompt, capability ladder (Workflow/Tasks/sequential), merge/cross-validate
verification.md	The mandatory adversarial skeptic pass — four refutation questions, verdict contract
confirm.md	Optional E2B-backed Confirm rung — parallel isolated repros that earn Confirmed verdicts (confirm-e2b.py)
tooling.md	bughunt.py reference — census/hotspots/signals/deps/merge/render/diff, state dir, CI mode
lens-dataflow-taint.md	Source→sink tracing
lens-state-lifecycle.md	State machines & resource lifecycle
lens-concurrency.md	Races, ordering, deadlock
lens-boundaries-numeric.md	Numeric & boundary conditions
lens-error-failure.md	Error & failure paths
lens-contract-spec.md	Contract vs implementation
lens-auth-access.md	Authorization & access control
lens-logic-correctness.md	Business-logic correctness
lens-resource-performance.md	Resource & performance at scale
lens-dx-pain.md	Developer-experience pain
lens-product-ux.md	Product & UX pain
lens-dependency-supply.md	Dependency & supply chain
lens-data-migration.md	Data & migration safety
platform-apple.md	Swift/ObjC catalog
platform-web.md	JS/TS/Node catalog
platform-systems.md	C/C++/Rust/Go catalog
platform-backend-cli.md	Backend + CLI catalog
platform-other.md	Android, .NET, PHP, Flutter/RN, SQL, IaC + generic fallback

When not to use

• Just reviewing your own session diff for quality → the autoreview skill (/review).
• You already have one suspected bug to assess → triage directly.
• You want to harden one function dynamically → fuzz directly.

Related skills

• triage — scoring, repro, and the report format bughunt emits
• fuzz — confirm Probable findings dynamically
• the autoreview skill (/review) — the recommended fix/quality gate after reporting
• verify / /verify — drive the real app to reproduce a runtime-only bug