This skill should be used when the user asks to 'find bugs', 'do a thorough code review', 'run a security audit', 'hunt for bugs', 'check for correctness issues', or 'review this code for edge cases'. Orchestrates a three-phase adversarial review using three isolated agents — Nyx (Hunter), Kayle (Skeptic), Iris (Referee) — to neutralize sycophancy and produce high-fidelity bug reports. User-facing command: /bug-hunt
From bopen-toolsnpx claudepluginhub b-open-io/claude-plugins --plugin bopen-toolsThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
README.mdevals/benchmark.jsonevals/evals.jsonSearches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.
Searches prompts.chat for AI prompt templates by keyword or category, retrieves by ID with variable handling, and improves prompts via AI. Use for discovering or enhancing prompts.
Enables AI agents to execute x402 payments with per-task budgets, spending controls, and non-custodial wallets via MCP tools. Use when agents pay for APIs, services, or other agents.
An adversarial code review workflow designed by danpeguine (@danpeguine). Three agents run in isolated contexts — no agent sees what any other agent "wants" to hear. This eliminates sycophantic confirmation bias and produces ground-truth bug reports.
User command: /bug-hunt [path | -b branch [--base base]]
When a single agent both finds bugs and evaluates them, it anchors on its own earlier judgments. By resetting context between phases and giving each agent only what it needs, every verdict is genuinely independent. The Skeptic cannot see the Hunter's enthusiasm. The Referee cannot see the Skeptic's skepticism.
| Phase | Agent | Subagent Type | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Hunter | Nyx | bopen-tools:code-auditor | Find every possible bug. Maximize recall. False positives OK. |
| 2. Skeptic | Kayle | bopen-tools:architecture-reviewer | Challenge every finding. Risk/EV calculation. 2x penalty for wrong dismissals. |
| 3. Referee | Iris | bopen-tools:tester | Final arbiter. Read code independently. Produce ground truth. |
The skill supports two modes:
Path mode (default): Scan a file, directory, or the entire project.
/bug-hunt # Entire project
/bug-hunt src/ # Directory
/bug-hunt lib/auth.ts # Specific file
Branch diff mode (-b): Scan only files changed between branches. Reads full file contents, not just diffs.
/bug-hunt -b feature-xyz # vs main
/bug-hunt -b feature-xyz --base dev # vs dev
For branch diff mode: git diff --name-only <base>...<branch> to get the file list.
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| +1 | Low — minor edge case, cosmetic, code smell |
| +5 | Medium — functional issue, data inconsistency, missing validation |
| +10 | Critical — security vulnerability, data loss, race condition, crash |
EV = (confidence% × points) - ((100 - confidence%) × 2 × points)All three agents use a consistent BUG-ID format for cross-phase traceability:
Hunter output:
**BUG-[N]** | Severity: [Low/Medium/Critical] | Points: [1/5/10]
- **File:** [path]
- **Line(s):** [number or range]
- **Category:** [logic|security|error-handling|concurrency|edge-case|performance|data-integrity|type-safety|other]
- **Claim:** [one sentence]
- **Evidence:** [code quote]
Skeptic output:
**BUG-[N]** | Original: [points] pts
- **Counter-argument:** [technical argument citing code]
- **Evidence:** [code quote]
- **Confidence:** [0-100]%
- **Risk calc:** EV = ...
- **Decision:** DISPROVE / ACCEPT
Referee output:
**BUG-[N]**
- **Hunter's claim:** [summary]
- **Skeptic's response:** [DISPROVE/ACCEPT + summary]
- **Your analysis:** [independent assessment]
- **VERDICT: REAL BUG / NOT A BUG**
- **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
- **True severity:** [Low/Medium/Critical]
- **Suggested fix:** [brief direction]
Parse arguments for path mode vs branch diff mode. In branch diff mode, run git diff --name-only to get the file list.
Dispatch bopen-tools:code-auditor with the target scope. The Hunter uses Glob/Read/Grep to examine actual code. Must NOT speculate about unread files.
If Hunter reports TOTAL FINDINGS: 0, skip Skeptic and Referee. Present a clean report directly.
Dispatch bopen-tools:architecture-reviewer with ONLY the structured bug list (BUG-IDs, files, lines, claims, evidence, severity). Do NOT pass the full codebase or any narrative text. The Skeptic reads code independently.
Dispatch bopen-tools:tester with the Hunter's full report AND the Skeptic's full report. The Referee reads code independently.
Display the Referee's verified report:
<details> section with dismissed bugs for transparencyA clean report (zero confirmed bugs) is a valid result — say so clearly.
| Phase | Gets access to |
|---|---|
| Hunter (Nyx) | Full codebase (or changed files in branch diff mode) |
| Skeptic (Kayle) | Structured bug list + referenced file paths only |
| Referee (Iris) | Hunter findings + Skeptic verdicts only |
Violating these boundaries reintroduces the sycophancy problem. If the Skeptic sees the Hunter's confidence, it anchors on it. If the Referee sees either agent's emotional register, it drifts toward consensus rather than truth.
-b mode)For quick informal reviews, just use Nyx directly in normal mode.