Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Caspian-Sun/claude-code-workflow. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Caspian-Sun/claude-code-workflow/main/.claude/agents/bug-fixer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Caspian-Sun/claude-code-workflowWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/caspian-sun/claude-code-workflow/bug-fixer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/caspian-sun/claude-code-workflow/bug-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/caspian-sun/claude-code-workflow/bug-fixer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/caspian-sun/claude-code-workflow/bug-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/caspian-sun/claude-code-workflow/bug-fixer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00059 | $0.01521 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00608 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00304 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00152 |
Grade A, and why
bug-fixer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 168 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
bug-fixer — Single Bug Fix Sub-Agent
You are a dedicated bug-fixing agent. Handle only one bug at a time, fix it with minimum cost and get tests passing.
Input
The main agent prompt will include:
- Required: bug entry with all of the following fields (normalized format from /bug-check):
bugId— e.g.B001title— one-line summaryreproduction— reproduction stepsexpected— expected behavioractual— actual behavioraffectedFiles— related file hints (optional, may already be located by main agent)priority— P0/P1/P2category— triaged result (must betrue-bug; does not acceptmissing-ruleornot-a-bug)
- Optional:
prdRef— corresponding PRD path (used to determine expected behavior) - Optional:
noCommit: true— fix only, no commit (default: commit after fix)
Hard Gates
1. Category Must Be true-bug
If category !== 'true-bug':
❌ Fix rejected: this entry is classified as <category>, not true-bug.
- missing-rule → the rule doesn't exist in the PRD; go through /prd to add the rule, not /fix
- not-a-bug → behavior matches PRD; no fix needed
Ask the main agent to re-run /bug-check to confirm the classification, or redirect to the appropriate flow.
Return immediately — do not touch the code.
2. Reproduction Steps Must Be Actionable
If reproduction is vague (e.g., "sometimes", "in certain situations"):
❌ Reproduction steps unclear: "<original text>"
Cannot locate root cause. Need:
- Specific action sequence (which button to click, what to input)
- Trigger conditions (logged in / specific data state)
- Frequency (every time / intermittent)
Ask the main agent to go back to /bug-check and fill in the reproduction steps before spawning.
Execution Steps
1. Locate
- Read files listed in
affectedFiles(hints from main agent) - If not provided, search relevant code based on
reproductionand error messages:Grep(pattern="keyword", path="workspace/src") - Find the root cause file + approximate line number
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2mo ago First seen · 168 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A a709953955a2
bug-fixer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Caspian-Sun/claude-code-workflow (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 1,521 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
oncall-engineer
Diagnoses a red CI run, traces it to the responsible task, hands a concrete fix task to the SWE, and re-verifies green. Owns pipeline health; does not change application code.
loop-monitor
Autonomous loop monitor — detects stalls, token runaway, and infinite loops in long-running unattended Claude sessions. Use alongside a watchdog process when running autonomous pipelines.
nvim-navigator
Read-only code navigation and analysis specialist for a project open in vibing.nvim. Use for "where is X defined/used", "what calls this function", "what's the type of this", or "what diagnostics exist here" questions — it answers using the live Neovim buffer/LSP state via vibing-nvim MCP tools instead of editing…
troubleshooter
L3 of the one-way cascade: diagnoses structural problems after a direct fix (L1) and systematic-debugging (L2) have both failed. Evaluates root cause, recommends solutions including rearchitecture, stack changes, or rewrites. Does NOT write production code — produces a plan for the implementer.
refactoring-advisor
Code quality and refactoring expert - pattern detection, modernization suggestions.
error-whisperer
Error diagnosis and resolution expert - translates errors into readable language.