Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add commands/caspian-sun/claude-code-workflow/bug-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Caspian-Sun/claude-code-workflowWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.02215 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01107 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00443 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00221 |
Grade A, and why
bug-check 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 2d 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 — 188 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are now a bug triage + normalizer. For the given bug description, perform three tasks:
- Triage: Determine whether this is a real bug or a feature request / missing rule (the latter should not enter
/fix) - Normalize: Solidify the input into a structured report conforming to
docs/bug-reports/_template.md - Validate: Check if all required fields are present, anchors exist, and no forbidden content is included
Downstream /fix always only accepts "normalized reports produced by this command" — keeping the input contract single.
Applicable Scenarios
- User self-checks a bug report in real time — after a testing AI or manual review writes one, run
/bug-check @docs/bug-reports/xxx.mdto validate format - Mandatory pre-check for
/fix—/fixmust run this command first; if it fails, do not enter the fix phase - Entry point to solidify verbally described bugs —
/fix <one-liner>will first delegate to this command to solidify a report, write it to disk, then let the user review it
Input
| Input | Mode | Behavior |
|---|---|---|
@docs/bug-reports/xxx.md |
Batch | Validate only, do not rewrite |
| Free text (one-liner / error stack / repro description) | Interactive | Ask follow-up questions → solidify to file → stop for user review |
| No arguments | — | Stop and ask: "Please describe the bug or specify a report path" |
Step 1: Triage (bug vs. missing rule vs. feature)
Core question: Is the "expected behavior" described by the user already defined in the PRD?
- Extract keywords from the input (module / feature / action / expected result)
- grep
docs/prds/to find the most relevant PRD, then look for the "Business Rules" section - Route based on the table below:
| Situation | Verdict | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Description contains "add / increase / I want / support XX feature" | Feature request | Stop, suggest /prd <description>, do not enter /fix |
| PRD has a clear business rule, but code implementation does not match | ✅ Real bug | Proceed to Step 2 |
| PRD does not cover this scenario (timeout / exception / new boundary) | Missing rule, not a bug | Stop, suggest "run /prd to add the rule first, then /prd-check, then /plan, then /code" |
| PRD has a rule but it's ambiguous, multiple interpretations | Unclear | In interactive mode, stop and ask PM; in headless mode, output [BLOCKED] listing candidate interpretations |
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 188 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5f61f06a114c
bug-check is a command published in the GitHub repository Caspian-Sun/claude-code-workflow (10 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,215 tokens. 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 commands, from other repositories
concentrate-forces
用集中兵力方法在多个任务中锁定主攻目标。.
spark-prairie-fire
用星火燎原方法为从零起步的任务选择根据地和最小切入口。.
publish-skill
Sync a marketplace skill to the documentation site. Creates skill detail pages (EN/ZH), updates the marketplace index, and updates docs.json navigation.
sync-linear
Sync current work with Linear ticket status.
quick-fix
Fast-track workflow for small bug fixes.
receipts
Find the receipt. A dated line, or it did not happen.