Skill: athola/nm-pensive-bug-review (version 1.0.2)

--- name: bug-review description: Bug hunting with evidence trails: find defects, document them, and verify fixes version: 1.9.5 triggers: - bugs - defects - debugging - code-quality - fixes - verification metadata: {"openclaw": {"homepage": "https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/pensive", "emoji": "\ud83d\udd0d", "requires": {"config": ["night-market.pensive:shared", "night-market.imbue:proof-of-work", "night-market.imbue:diff-analysis/modules/risk-assessment-framework"]}}} source: claude-night-market source_plugin: pensive --- > **Night Market Skill** — ported from [claude-night-market/pensive](https://github.com/athola/claude-night-market/tree/master/plugins/pensive). For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin. ## Table of Contents - [Quick Start](#quick-start) - [When to Use](#when-to-use) - [Required TodoWrite Items](#required-todowrite-items) - [Progressive Loading](#progressive-loading) - [Workflow](#workflow) - [Step 1: Detect Languages (`bug-review:language-detected`)](#step-1:-detect-languages-(bug-review:language-detected)) - [Step 2: Plan Reproduction (`bug-review:repro-plan`)](#step-2:-plan-reproduction-(bug-review:repro-plan)) - [Step 3: Document Defects (`bug-review:defects-documented`)](#step-3:-document-defects-(bug-review:defects-documented)) - [Step 4: Prepare Fixes (`bug-review:fixes-prepared`)](#step-4:-prepare-fixes-(bug-review:fixes-prepared)) - [Step 5: Verification Plan (`bug-review:verification-plan`)](#step-5:-verification-plan-(bug-review:verification-plan)) - [Defect Classification (Condensed)](#defect-classification-(condensed)) - [Output Format](#output-format) - [Summary](#summary) - [Defects Found](#defects-found) - [[D1] file.rs:142 - Title](#[d1]-filers:142---title) - [Proposed Fixes](#proposed-fixes) - [Fix for D1](#fix-for-d1) - [Test Updates](#test-updates) - [Evidence](#evidence) - [Best Practices](#best-practices) - [Exit Criteria](#exit-criteria) # 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` ## 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. ## 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 - 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 - Fixes prepared with test coverage verified - Verification plan includes commands and expected outputs - Remaining risks assessed and owners assigned ## Troubleshooting ### Common Issues **Command not found** Ensure all dependencies are installed and in PATH **Permission errors** Check file permissions and run with appropriate privileges **Unexpected behavior** Enable verbose logging with `--verbose` flag


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)