/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.
$ npx -y skills add chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows --skill bug-fix --agent claude-codeHow 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
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.mdname: 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
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
Showing the first part of this file.
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.
Repo: chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows
Other skills on claude-swe-workflows.
- /bug-hunt
Proactive bug-hunting workflow. Assesses codebase risk through complexity, coverage, and structural analysis, then spawns focused investigators that write reproducing tests to validate suspected bugs. Thoroughness over speed. Advisory only — produces findings and proposes
Open skill - /implement-batch
Multi-ticket batch workflow. Takes a batch of tickets, plans execution order, implements each via /implement in autonomous mode, runs cross-cutting quality passes, and presents results for final review.
Open skill - /implement-project
Full-lifecycle project workflow. Takes batched tickets, implements via /implement-batch, runs smoke tests, then executes a comprehensive quality pipeline (refactor, review-arch, review-test, tidy-docs, review-release). Maximizes autonomy with andon cord escape.
Open skill - /implement
Iterative development workflow that coordinates implementation, refactoring, QA, and documentation agents to complete features systematically. Use when the user wants a full development workflow with quality checks.
Open skill - /lead-bug-hunt
Autonomous bug-elimination loop. Iteratively invokes /bug-hunt and /implement-batch until findings converge below an operator-specified severity floor. At termination, runs /review-test scoped to the run's new reproducing tests and fixes quality issues above the floor.
Open skill - /lead-project
Autonomous technical lead. Takes commander's intent and drives a project to completion through an OODA loop over implementation, refactoring, review, and bug-hunting skills. Has broad authority — creates tickets, commits, invokes any skill — and only escalates via andon cord for
Open skill

