bug-report▌
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios · updated Apr 16, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
### Bug Report
- ›description: "Creates a structured bug report from a description, or analyzes code to identify potential bugs. Ensures every bug report has full reproduction steps, severity assessment, and context."
- ›argument-hint: "[description] | analyze [path-to-file]"
- ›allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write
| name | bug-report |
| description | "Creates a structured bug report from a description, or analyzes code to identify potential bugs. Ensures every bug report has full reproduction steps, severity assessment, and context." |
| argument-hint | "[description] | analyze [path-to-file]" |
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep, Write |
Phase 1: Parse Arguments
Determine the mode from the argument:
- No keyword → Description Mode: generate a structured bug report from the provided description
analyze [path]→ Analyze Mode: read the target file(s) and identify potential bugsverify [BUG-ID]→ Verify Mode: confirm a reported fix actually resolved the bugclose [BUG-ID]→ Close Mode: mark a verified bug as closed with resolution record
If no argument is provided, ask the user for a bug description before proceeding.
Phase 2A: Description Mode
-
Parse the description for key information: what broke, when, how to reproduce it, and what the expected behavior is.
-
Search the codebase for related files using Grep/Glob to add context (affected system, likely files).
-
Draft the bug report:
# Bug Report
## Summary
**Title**: [Concise, descriptive title]
**ID**: BUG-[NNNN]
**Severity**: [S1-Critical / S2-Major / S3-Minor / S4-Trivial]
**Priority**: [P1-Immediate / P2-Next Sprint / P3-Backlog / P4-Wishlist]
**Status**: Open
**Reported**: [Date]
**Reporter**: [Name]
## Classification
- **Category**: [Gameplay / UI / Audio / Visual / Performance / Crash / Network]
- **System**: [Which game system is affected]
- **Frequency**: [Always / Often (>50%) / Sometimes (10-50%) / Rare (<10%)]
- **Regression**: [Yes/No/Unknown -- was this working before?]
## Environment
- **Build**: [Version or commit hash]
- **Platform**: [OS, hardware if relevant]
- **Scene/Level**: [Where in the game]
- **Game State**: [Relevant state -- inventory, quest progress, etc.]
## Reproduction Steps
**Preconditions**: [Required state before starting]
1. [Exact step 1]
2. [Exact step 2]
3. [Exact step 3]
**Expected Result**: [What should happen]
**Actual Result**: [What actually happens]
## Technical Context
- **Likely affected files**: [List of files based on codebase search]
- **Related systems**: [What other systems might be involved]
- **Possible root cause**: [If identifiable from the description]
## Evidence
- **Logs**: [Relevant log output if available]
- **Visual**: [Description of visual evidence]
## Related Issues
- [Links to related bugs or design documents]
## Notes
[Any additional context or observations]
Phase 2B: Analyze Mode
-
Read the target file(s) specified in the argument.
-
Identify potential bugs: null references, off-by-one errors, race conditions, unhandled edge cases, resource leaks, incorrect state transitions.
-
For each potential bug, generate a bug report using the template above, with the likely trigger scenario and recommended fix filled in.
Phase 2C: Verify Mode
Read production/qa/bugs/[BUG-ID].md. Extract the reproduction steps and expected result.
- Re-run reproduction steps — use Grep/Glob to check whether the root cause code path still exists as described. If the fix removed or changed it, note the change.
- Run the related test — if the bug's system has a test file in
tests/, run it via Bash and report pass/fail. - Check for regression — grep the codebase for any new occurrence of the pattern that caused the bug.
Produce a verification verdict:
- VERIFIED FIXED — reproduction steps no longer produce the bug; related tests pass
- STILL PRESENT — bug reproduces as described; fix did not resolve the issue
- CANNOT VERIFY — automated checks inconclusive; manual playtest required
Ask: "May I update production/qa/bugs/[BUG-ID].md to set Status: Verified Fixed / Still Present / Cannot Verify?"
If STILL PRESENT: reopen the bug, set Status back to Open, and suggest re-running /hotfix [BUG-ID].
Phase 2D: Close Mode
Read production/qa/bugs/[BUG-ID].md. Confirm Status is Verified Fixed before closing. If status is anything else, stop: "Bug [ID] must be Verified Fixed before it can be closed. Run /bug-report verify [BUG-ID] first."
Append a closure record to the bug file:
## Closure Record
**Closed**: [date]
**Resolution**: Fixed — [one-line description of what was changed]
**Fix commit / PR**: [if known]
**Verified by**: qa-tester
**Closed by**: [user]
**Regression test**: [test file path, or "Manual verification"]
**Status**: Closed
Update the top-level **Status**: Open field to **Status**: Closed.
Ask: "May I update production/qa/bugs/[BUG-ID].md to mark it Closed?"
After closing, check production/qa/bug-triage-*.md — if the bug appears in an open triage report, note: "Bug [ID] is referenced in the triage report. Run /bug-triage to refresh the open bug count."
Phase 3: Save Report
Present the completed bug report(s) to the user.
Ask: "May I write this to production/qa/bugs/BUG-[NNNN].md?"
If yes, write the file, creating the directory if needed. Verdict: COMPLETE — bug report filed.
If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
Phase 4: Next Steps
After saving, suggest based on mode:
After filing (Description/Analyze mode):
- Run
/bug-triageto prioritize alongside existing open bugs - If S1 or S2: run
/hotfix [BUG-ID]for emergency fix workflow
After fixing the bug (developer confirms fix is in):
- Run
/bug-report verify [BUG-ID]— confirm the fix actually works before closing - Never mark a bug closed without verification — a fix that doesn't verify is still Open
After verify returns VERIFIED FIXED:
- Run
/bug-report close [BUG-ID]— write the closure record and update status - Run
/bug-triageto refresh the open bug count and remove it from the active list
How to use bug-report on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add bug-report
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches bug-report from GitHub repository Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate bug-report. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /bug-report) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
Task Automation & Efficiency
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Knowledge Enhancement
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Quality Improvement
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
- ›Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
- ›Willingness to iterate and refine outputs
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Installation Steps
- 1.Install skill using provided installation command
- 2.Test with simple use case relevant to your work
- 3.Evaluate output quality and relevance
- 4.Iterate on prompts to improve results
- 5.Integrate into regular workflow if valuable
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Expecting perfect results without iteration
- ⚠Not providing enough context in prompts
- ⚠Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
- ⚠Accepting outputs without review and validation
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Start with clear, specific prompts
- +Provide relevant context and constraints
- +Review and refine all outputs before using
- +Iterate to improve output quality
- +Document successful prompt patterns
✗ Don't
- −Don't use without understanding skill limitations
- −Don't skip validation of outputs
- −Don't share sensitive information in prompts
- −Don't expect skill to replace human judgment
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Be specific about desired format and style
- ★Ask for multiple options to choose from
- ★Request explanations to understand reasoning
- ★Combine AI efficiency with human expertise
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
Learning Path▌
- 1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
- 2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
- 3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
- 4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.5★★★★★39 reviews- ★★★★★Dhruvi Jain· Dec 20, 2024
We added bug-report from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Nia Gill· Dec 20, 2024
bug-report is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★William Ghosh· Dec 12, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: bug-report is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Oshnikdeep· Nov 11, 2024
Useful defaults in bug-report — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Nia Garcia· Nov 11, 2024
Keeps context tight: bug-report is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Xiao Jain· Nov 3, 2024
I recommend bug-report for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Sophia Reddy· Oct 22, 2024
Keeps context tight: bug-report is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Amelia White· Oct 22, 2024
Useful defaults in bug-report — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Ganesh Mohane· Oct 2, 2024
Registry listing for bug-report matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Camila Gill· Oct 2, 2024
I recommend bug-report for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
showing 1-10 of 39