A streamlined, low-ceremony approach to fixing bugs and managing technical debt.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/fix-matteocervelli && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/9515" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/fix-matteocervelli && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/fix-matteocervelli
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Fix bugs and technical debt with minimal ceremony. Issue GitHub optional — provide one for traceability or work free-form. Replaces /issue-fix.Key capabilities
- →Fix bugs and technical debt
- →Apply regression tests
- →Perform security scans
- →Create optional PRs
How it works
It provides a minimal-ceremony workflow for fixing bugs or tech debt, including security verification and regression testing.
Inputs & outputs
When to use fix
- →Fix a quick bug
- →Address identified technical debt
- →Apply a fix linked to a specific GitHub issue
About this skill
Fix Skill
Purpose
Minimal-ceremony fix workflow for bugs and technical debt. GitHub issue is optional — provide one for traceability, or describe the problem free-form.
Replaces /issue-fix. Key differences from the old skill:
- Issue number not required
- No automatic PR (opt-in with
--pr) - Cleaner ceremony: branch → fix → security scan → regression test → commit
When to Use vs Other Skills
/quick | /fix | /implementation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ceremony | None | Minimal | Full |
| Size | Tiny (minutes) | Small-medium | Medium-large |
| Type | Anything | Bug / tech debt | Feature / refactor |
| Issue | Optional | Optional | Optional |
| PR | No | Optional (--pr) | Yes |
| Tests | No | Regression only | Full TDD |
Usage
/fix "broken login after password change"
/fix --issue 42 "auth regression on mobile"
/fix --pr "memory leak in worker queue" # create PR after commit
/fix --issue 15 --pr "null pointer in parser" # issue + PR
Workflow
1. Analysis
If issue provided:
gh issue view <N>
Complexity check — pick one path:
Simple fix (root cause obvious from description, ≤2 files, no security implications): → Reason through root cause directly, proceed to Step 2.
Complex fix (scope unclear, multiple files, security implications, or ambiguous cause): → Automatically enter Plan Mode:
- Call
EnterPlanMode - Spawn a Plan agent (
model: sonnet) with all gathered context to produce:- Root cause analysis
- Minimal change plan (files + rationale)
- Regression test strategy
- Security implications (if any)
- Call
ExitPlanMode— present plan to user, wait for approval - After approval, proceed to Step 2
Root cause still unclear after analysis? Stop and run
/diagnose "<symptom description>"first. Return here once the investigation identifies the root cause.
2. Branch
# With issue number
git checkout -b fix/<N>-brief-description
# Without issue (free-form)
git checkout -b fix/brief-description
Check for open release branches first:
git branch -r --list 'origin/release/*' | sed 's|origin/||'
If a release branch exists, ask: "Target release branch or main?"
3. Implement
Fix following these principles:
- Minimal: touch only what's needed — resist refactoring adjacent code
- Secure: validate inputs, handle errors cleanly, no data leaks
- Defensive: null checks, proper error boundaries
4. Test
Write a regression test to verify the fix:
# Python
ruff check . && mypy .
pytest -k "test_<relevant>" # Full suite runs on CI; locally run only relevant tests
# JS/TS
npm run lint && npm run typecheck
npm test -- --testPathPattern="<relevant>"
Test requirements:
- Bug reproduction test (confirms fix works)
- Security edge cases if the bug has security implications
- Trivial fixes: add a test case to the nearest existing test file (no new test file needed)
5. Gate
Run /security-verify scan before committing — non-negotiable per rules/security-gate.md.
6. Commit
# With issue
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
fix: <description>
Fixes #<N>
EOF
)"
# Without issue
git commit -m "fix: <description>"
7. Optional PR
Only if --pr flag or explicitly requested:
gh pr create --title "fix: <description>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Root Cause
[brief]
## Fix
[what changed and why]
## Testing
- [ ] Regression test added
- [ ] Security edge cases verified
EOF
)"
Otherwise: push branch, leave PR for later or skip entirely.
8. Update CHANGELOG
Add to [Unreleased] section:
- fix: <description> (#N if applicable)
9. Smoke Tests + Review
Always close with a short manual smoke test checklist (3–5 items). Infer the interface type:
- REST endpoint →
curlcommands covering happy path + error path - Frontend → numbered browser steps (open URL → action → verify state)
- CLI → shell commands including
--helpand one error case - Library → one-liner
python -c "..."or inline snippet
Then suggest (in order, don't skip the first):
→ /review changes ← always before /pre-commit
→ /pre-commit (only if --pr flag or user explicitly asks)
Do NOT jump straight to /pre-commit — /review changes should always come first.
Tech Debt Remediation
/fix is also the right skill for tech debt when:
- Change is isolated (no interface changes, no API breakage)
- Requires updating existing tests, not writing new suites
- Impact is contained to 1-3 files
For larger tech debt (cross-cutting, interface changes, architectural rework), use /implementation.
Tracking: GitHub milestone TECH-DEBT.
Tips
- Keep fixes minimal — resist refactoring unrelated code
- Always document root cause in commit message or PR body for future reference
When not to use it
- →When the task is a large feature or architectural rework
- →When the user wants full TDD ceremony
Prerequisites
Limitations
- →Minimal ceremony
- →Not for large features
How it compares
It offers a middle ground between zero-ceremony quick fixes and full-ceremony implementation, focusing on bug/debt remediation.
Compared to similar skills
fix side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| fix (this skill) | 0 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| python-testing-patterns | 77 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| error-handling-patterns | 35 | 2mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| codex-claude-loop | 13 | 9mo | Review | Advanced |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by matteocervelli
View all by matteocervelli →You might also like
python-testing-patterns
wshobson
Implement comprehensive testing strategies with pytest, fixtures, mocking, and test-driven development. Use when writing Python tests, setting up test suites, or implementing testing best practices.
error-handling-patterns
wshobson
Master error handling patterns across languages including exceptions, Result types, error propagation, and graceful degradation to build resilient applications. Use when implementing error handling, designing APIs, or improving application reliability.
codex-claude-loop
bear2u
Orchestrates a dual-AI engineering loop where Claude Code plans and implements, while Codex validates and reviews, with continuous feedback for optimal code quality
serena
massgen
This skill provides symbol-level code understanding and navigation using Language Server Protocol (LSP). Enables IDE-like capabilities for finding symbols, tracking references, and making precise code edits at the symbol level.
javascript-mastery
davila7
Comprehensive JavaScript reference covering 33+ essential concepts every developer should know. From fundamentals like primitives and closures to advanced patterns like async/await and functional programming. Use when explaining JS concepts, debugging JavaScript issues, or teaching JavaScript fundamentals.
find-bugs
davila7
Find bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues in local branch changes. Use when asked to review changes, find bugs, security review, or audit code on the current branch.