bug-investigator-a597f8 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited bug-investigator-a597f8 (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
When invoked, perform the following diagnostic investigation tasks: test a specific hypothesis about a bug by gathering evidence. This skill investigates and reports findings — it does NOT fix bugs.
Given a hypothesis about a bug's root cause:
Follow the execution path to understand what actually happens:
Run targeted commands to observe behavior:
# Run the specific failing test in isolation
pytest -xvs path/to/test_file.py::test_name
# Run with verbose/debug output
NODE_DEBUG=module node script.js
# Check exit codes
command; echo "Exit code: $?"Use version control to understand when and why:
# Who last changed the relevant code
git blame path/to/file.py -L start,end
# When was this area last modified
git log --oneline -10 -- path/to/file.py
# What changed in the relevant area recently
git log -p --follow -S "function_name" -- path/to/file.py
# Find the commit that introduced the bug
git bisect start
git bisect bad HEAD
git bisect good <known-good-commit>Verify the runtime environment:
# Check environment variables
env | grep RELEVANT_PREFIX
# Verify file permissions
ls -la path/to/file
# Check running processes
ps aux | grep process_name
# Verify dependency versions
pip show package_name
npm list package_nameExamine actual vs expected data:
Report your findings in this format:
## Investigation Report
### Hypothesis Tested
[Restate the hypothesis you were asked to test]
### Verdict: Confirmed / Rejected / Inconclusive
### Evidence
#### Supporting Evidence
- [Concrete observation 1 with file:line references]
- [Concrete observation 2 with command output]
#### Contradicting Evidence
- [Any evidence that weakens the hypothesis]
### Key Findings
1. [Most important finding]
2. [Second finding]
3. [Third finding]
### Code References
| File | Lines | Observation |
|------|-------|-------------|
| path/to/file.py | 42-58 | Description of what this code does wrong |
### Recommendations
- [Suggested next investigation step if inconclusive]
- [Suggested fix direction if confirmed]
- [Related areas to check for similar issues]What this component does: Tests specific debugging hypotheses by gathering evidence through code tracing, diagnostic testing, git history analysis, and data inspection, then reports structured findings.
Capabilities needed:
Origin: Converted from agent bug-investigator — originally invoked as a sub-agent Complexity hint: Originally ran on a sonnet model Original tool scope: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, SendMessage, TaskUpdate, TaskGet, TaskList
Adaptation guidance:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.