CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

bughunt

Fully autonomous bug hunting pipeline — discover bugs in a scoped area using parallel subagents, independently triage each finding, fix confirmed issues with subagents, then audit all fixes against repo constraints and target platforms. Runs end-to-end without user interaction.

67

Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/bughunt/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a highly actionable, well-sequenced five-phase pipeline with explicit validation and feedback loops; its main weakness is mild redundancy in restating the autonomy principle and a single-file structure that could offload some detail.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean with concrete prompt templates and commands, but the autonomy message ('do not wait for user input', 'fully autonomous') is restated several times across phases and the Guidance section, which could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: per-phase subagent prompt templates, specific commands (`mkdir -p {OUTPUT_DIR}/evidence`, `bash -n`, `python -m py_compile`, `tsc --noEmit`), and concrete audit traps like GNU-only flags (`head -c`, `readlink -f`, `grep -P`).

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (independent triage before fix, syntax/parse checks after edits, audit after fixes, re-run after corrections) and feedback loops for error recovery; the batch fix operation has validation, so it is not capped at 3.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well-organized into clearly labeled phases and a Guidance section with no nested references and no bundles to navigate, but it is a ~200-line monolithic file with some material (e.g., prompt templates, detailed audit guidance) kept inline rather than split out.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description concretely enumerates the four pipeline stages and is highly specific and distinct, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which limits its completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural triggers (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to find, triage, and fix bugs in a scoped area of a codebase, or wants an autonomous bugbash').

Include a few more natural synonyms users would say, such as 'find bugs', 'bugbash', or 'code audit', to broaden trigger coverage.

State the trigger context concisely to lift completeness above the 3 cap without adding fluff.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'discover bugs in a scoped area using parallel subagents', 'independently triage each finding', 'fix confirmed issues with subagents', 'audit all fixes against repo constraints and target platforms' — giving comprehensive coverage of the pipeline's capabilities.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly and comprehensively stated, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like 'bug hunting', 'bugs', 'triage', and 'audit' are present, but common variations users might say ('find bugs', 'bugbash', 'code review') are missing, so coverage is good rather than comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'fully autonomous bug hunting pipeline' framing with parallel subagents, triage, and cross-platform audit is a distinct niche, though it has minor overlap risk with general code-review or find-bugs skills.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
av/harbor
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.