Bug review

Skill zlatkomq/spec-first-framework/skills/bug-review

Install

npx -y skills add zlatkomq/spec-first-framework --skill bug-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

5.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Bug Review

Description

Use when reviewing a completed bugfix implementation to produce a REVIEW.md in the bug folder. Not for feature code review — use the code-review skill for that. Not for creating bug specs — use the bugfixing skill.

Instructions

You are reviewing a bugfix implementation. Follow these rules strictly.

What You Must Inspect

You must actively inspect:

The BUG.md for reproduction steps and fix criteria
The original SPEC.md for acceptance criteria
Source code changes made for the fix
The regression test added
Any configuration or dependency changes

Do NOT produce a review based solely on reading BUG.md. You must verify the actual code.

Required Inputs

Before reviewing, you must have access to:

bugs/BUG-XXX/BUG.md for bug details and fix criteria
The original specs/XXX/SPEC.md (linked in BUG.md)
../../CONSTITUTION.md for coding standards
The actual source code files modified for the fix
The regression test file

Review Process

Step 1: Fix Verification

Verify the bug is actually fixed:

Reproduction steps from BUG.md would no longer produce the bug
The fix addresses the root cause documented in BUG.md
Original acceptance criteria (from SPEC.md) is satisfied

Step 2: Regression Test Verification

Check the regression test:

Test exists and is named appropriately (references BUG-XXX)
Test covers the exact reproduction scenario
Test would fail without the fix (based on logic review)
Test passes with the fix in place
Test follows CONSTITUTION.md testing patterns

If regression test is missing, set Verdict = CHANGES REQUESTED.

Step 3: Minimal Change Verification

Ensure the fix is appropriately scoped:

Only necessary files were modified
No unrelated changes bundled in
No feature additions disguised as bugfix
No unnecessary refactoring

Step 4: CONSTITUTION.md Compliance

Check code quality:

Coding standards followed
Error handling appropriate
No new security issues introduced
File locations correct

Step 5: No Regression Check

Verify no new issues:

Existing tests still pass
No new linting errors
No obvious side effects from the change

Review Verdicts

APPROVED

All checks pass. Bug is fixed correctly with regression test.

CHANGES REQUESTED

One or more checks failed. List specific issues with:

What failed
Where (file path + function/method)
What needs to change

BLOCKED

Cannot complete review due to:

Missing regression test
Incomplete fix (not all tasks done)
Cannot verify reproduction scenario
Required files not accessible

Output Format

Save to: bugs/BUG-XXX-{slug}/REVIEW.md

# Bug Review: BUG-XXX

## Summary

| Category | Status |
|----------|--------|
| Fix Verification | ✅ / ❌ |
| Regression Test | ✅ / ❌ |
| Minimal Change | ✅ / ❌ |
| CONSTITUTION Compliance | ✅ / ❌ |
| No Regressions | ✅ / ❌ |

**Verdict:** APPROVED / CHANGES REQUESTED / BLOCKED

## Bug Details

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Bug ID | BUG-XXX |
| Related Spec | [FEAT-XXX](link) |
| Severity | Critical / Major / Minor |

## Fix Verification

| Criterion | Status | Evidence |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| Reproduction steps fixed | PASS/FAIL | [explanation] |
| Root cause addressed | PASS/FAIL | [explanation] |
| Acceptance criteria satisfied | PASS/FAIL | [file path + function] |

## Regression Test

| Check | Status | Location |
|-------|--------|----------|
| Test exists | ✅ / ❌ | path/to/test.py (test_bug_XXX) |
| Covers scenario | ✅ / ❌ | [explanation] |
| Would fail without fix | ✅ / ❌ | [explanation] |

## Files Changed

| File | Change Type | Review Status |
|------|-------------|---------------|
| path/to/file.py | Modified | ✅ / ❌ |
| path/to/test.py | Created | ✅ / ❌ |

## Issues Found

### Issue 1: [Title] (if any)
- **Severity:** Critical / Major / Minor
- **Location:** path/to/file.py (function_name)
- **Problem:** [Description]
- **Fix:** [What needs to change]

## Recommendations

[Optional: Non-blocking suggestions for improvement]

Post-Approval Actions

When the review verdict is APPROVED, instruct the user to complete this checklist:

Update BUG.md: Status → FIXED
Update BUG.md: Date Fixed → [today's date]
Update original SPEC.md: Add entry to Bug History table: | BUG-XXX | [severity] | [today's date] | [one-line description of bug and fix] |
Regenerate SPEC-CURRENT.md: compile frozen SPEC.md + all FIXED bugs (from Bug History) + all IMPLEMENTED CRs (from Amendment History) into specs/XXX/SPEC-CURRENT.md as the current-state convenience view. Use the template from ../../.framework/templates/SPEC-CURRENT.template.md for the header.

Provide the exact text to add to the SPEC.md Bug History section.

Constraints

Do NOT approve without a regression test
Do NOT approve if reproduction scenario is not addressed
Do NOT fix code yourself — only report issues
Do NOT add new requirements
Do NOT skip verification steps

Severity Definitions

Severity	Definition	Blocks Approval?
Critical	Fix doesn't work, introduces new bugs, security issue	Yes
Major	Missing regression test, incomplete fix	Yes
Minor	Style issues, minor improvements	No

Verification

All 5 review steps completed
Verdict determined based on findings
Every issue has location + problem + fix
Post-approval checklist provided if verdict is APPROVED
REVIEW.md saved to correct location in bugs/ folder

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 627,801. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.