Skip to content

/bug-fix

Bug-fixing workflow that coordinates diagnosis, test-driven reproduction, root-cause analysis, and targeted fixes. Use when the user wants to fix a bug with thorough investigation and regression testing.

shell
$ npx -y skills add chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows --skill bug-fix --agent claude-code

How it fires

How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.

  • Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
  • You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
  • Slash command/bug-fix
How auto-invocation works

Context preview

The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.

Bug-fixing workflow that coordinates diagnosis, test-driven reproduction, root-cause analysis, and targeted fixes. Use when the user wants to fix a bug with thorough investigation and regression testing.

SKILL.md

bug-fix.SKILL.md
name: bug-fix
description: Bug-fixing workflow that coordinates diagnosis, test-driven reproduction, root-cause analysis, and targeted fixes. Use when the user wants to fix a bug with thorough investigation and regression testing.
model: opus

Bugfix - Automated Bug-Fixing Workflow

Coordinates specialist agents through a bug-fixing cycle: clarify bug -> reproduce with failing test -> diagnose root cause -> implement fix -> verify -> review -> document.

Workflow

1. Clarify the bug

**Gather bug details from user:**

  • What are the symptoms? (error messages, unexpected behavior, crashes)
  • What is the expected behavior vs actual behavior?
  • How do you reproduce it? (steps, inputs, configuration)
  • When did it start? Any recent changes that might be related?
  • Environment specifics? (OS, versions, configuration)

**Ask clarifying questions if needed:**

  • Ambiguous symptoms
  • Missing reproduction steps
  • Unclear expected behavior

Loop back to user until the bug is clearly understood. You need enough information to write a test that demonstrates the failure.

2. Write Failing Test(s)

**Detect project language/framework:**

  • Check for language-specific files (go.mod, package.json, Cargo.toml, Dockerfile, Makefile, etc.)
  • Determine which specialist agent to use

**Spawn appropriate SME agent:**

  • If Golang project: spawn `swe-sme-golang` agent
  • If GraphQL schema/resolvers: spawn `swe-sme-graphql` agent
  • If Dockerfile changes: spawn `swe-sme-docker` agent
  • If Makefile changes: spawn `swe-sme-makefile` agent
  • If Ansible playbooks/roles: spawn `swe-sme-ansible` agent
  • If Zig project: spawn `swe-sme-zig` agent
  • If TypeScript project: spawn `swe-sme-typescript` agent
  • If JavaScript project: spawn `swe-sme-javascript` agent
  • If HTML/markup changes: spawn `swe-sme-html` agent
  • If CSS/styling changes: spawn `swe-sme-css` agent
  • Otherwise: write tests directly with general best practices

**SME agent task:**

  • Write test(s) that reproduce the reported bug
  • Tests should encode the *expected* behavior (so they fail against the *current* buggy behavior)
  • Run the tests and **verify they actually fail**
  • If the tests pass (bug cannot be reproduced): report back with findings — the bug may be environmental, already fixed, or misunderstood

**This is the contract.** When these tests pass, the bug is fixed.

**If reproduction fails:**

  • Return to step 1 for more information from the user
  • Report what was tried and why reproduction failed
  • Max 2 reproduction attempts before escalating to user with findings

3. Diagnosis

**Spawn `swe-bug-investigator` agent:**

  • Pass: bug description, failing test(s) from step 2, reproduction results
  • Agent performs root-cause analysis:
  • Traces execution paths through the code
  • Git archaeology at agent's discretion (shallow for obvious bugs, deep for systemic ones)
  • Identifies the root cause with supporting evidence
  • Identifies related failure modes that may share the same root cause
  • Agent produces a structured diagnosis report

**Diagnosis report includes:**

  • Root cause (immediate and underlying)
  • Evidence (code paths, git history, test results)
  • Recommended fix approach
  • Related failure modes (specific, actionable — not vague possibilities)
  • Confidence level

4. Implement the Fix

**Re-invoke the same SME agent from step 2:**

  • Pass the diagnosis report as guidance
  • SME implements the fix following the diagnostician's recommended approach
  • SME writes additional tests for related failure modes identified in step 3
  • SME verifies: the originally-failing test(s) from step 2 now pass
  • SME runs the full test suite to check for regressions

**Implementation agent responsibilities:**

  • Fix the bug as narrowly and precisely as possible
  • Don't refactor unrelated code (that's a separate workflow)
  • Write tests for each related failure mode the diagnostician identified
  • Ensure all new and existing tests pass

5. Quality Assurance - Verify Fix (CRITICAL GATE)

**Spawn `qa-engineer` agent:**

  • Pass: original bug description, reproduction steps, and acceptance criteria (the bug should no longer occur)
  • The agent infers its mode from context: presence of acceptance criteria triggers acceptance verification
  • Agent performs **practical verification first** — actually reproducing the originally-reported scenario and confirming it's fixed
  • This means: executing CLI commands, spawning subagents to test MCP tools, making API calls, etc.
  • Only AFTER practical verification confirms the fix works does the agent run the full test suite
  • Agent also checks the related failure modes identified by the diagnostician

**Practical verification by feature type:**

  • CLI tools: Run commands in subshell (skip destructive operations)
  • MCP servers/Claude skills: Spawn subagent to actually use the feature
  • API integrations: Make actual calls (with caution for dangerous operations)
  • Libraries: Quick sanity checks, then unit tests

**This is a CRITICAL GATE:**

  • The originally-reported bug must be demonstrably fixed (practical test) AND tests must pass to proceed
  • If practical verification fails: return to step 4 (implementation) immediately
  • If verification passes but tests fail: debug tests, not implementation
  • Track iteration count (max 3 attempts before escalating to user)

**Expected output:** Practical verification results, pass/fail determination with specific findings.

6. Code Review (Conditional)

**Only proceed to code review if fix verification passed.** Don't review broken code.

Conditionally invoke specialized reviewers based on code changes and complexity. All reviewers provide feedback; implementation agent responds to all feedback in step 7.

6a. Security Review (Conditional - Has Authority)

**If security-sensitive code changed (auth, crypto, input validation, data access):**

**Spawn `sec-blue-teamer` agent:**

  • Evaluates defensive security posture of changed code
  • Checks control consistency, defense
Read more
Read it on GitHub ↗

Showing the first part of this file.

Ships withclaude-swe-workflows

A system of composable software engineering workflows for Claude Code. Plan projects, implement tickets, and run quality passes — from a single ticket to a multi-batch project, using the same layered architecture.

Get the whole plugin, auto-invoked
Stats
18
Stars
0
Views
4
Forks
Maintained
Maintenance
MIT
License
2mo ago
Last commit
6mo ago
Created

Repo: chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows

Other skills on claude-swe-workflows.