/bug-review

name: bug-review
role: library
description: Hunts bugs with evidence trails. Use when investigating unexpected behavior or before merging code with potential hidden defects.
alwaysApply: false
category: code-review
tags:
- bugs
- defects
- debugging
- code-quality
- fixes
- verification
tools: []
usage_patterns:
- bug-hunting
- defect-documentation
- fix-preparation
- verification-planning
complexity: intermediate
estimated_tokens: 450
progressive_loading: true
dependencies:
- imbue:proof-of-work
- imbue:diff-analysis/modules/risk-assessment-framework
- imbue:review-core
- imbue:structured-output
modules:
- modules/defect-documentation.md
- modules/fix-preparation.md
- modules/language-detection.md

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 Progress Items

1. `bug-review:language-detected` 2. `bug-review:repro-plan` 3. `bug-review:defects-documented` 4. `bug-review:fixes-prepared` 5. `bug-review:verification-plan` 6. `bug-review:findings-verified`

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: 1. Write failing test 2. Apply minimal fix 3. 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.

Step 6: Verify Findings Are Grounded (`bug-review:findings-verified`)

Write defects to `.review/findings.json`, run the citation verifier (`Skill(imbue:review-core)` Step 5), and drop or label `UNVERIFIED` any the verifier rejects.

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
- Anchor: `verbatim source text at file.rs:142`
- 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

1. **Evidence-based**: Every finding has file:line reference 2. **Reproducible**: Clear steps to reproduce each bug 3. **Minimal fixes**: Smallest change that fixes the issue 4. **Test coverage**: Every fix has corresponding test 5. **Risk awareness**: Document remaining risks with severity scoring

Exit Criteria

• [ ] All defects documented with precise references
• [ ] Every defect carries a `file:line` + verbatim `Anchor`, and

`citation_verifier.py` confirmed all citations (exit `0`) or unverified defects were dropped or labeled `UNVERIFIED`

• [ ] Fixes prepared with test coverage verified
• [ ] Verification plan includes commands and expected outputs
• [ ] Remaining risks assessed and owners assigned