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
model_hint: standard
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

```bash
/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

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:
```bash
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

```markdown
## 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