skills/resolving-edge-cases/SKILL.md
Use when asked to proactively find, fix, or harden edge-case bugs in a specific code flow, or when a concrete bug fix suggests nearby same-pattern regression risks that should be inspected.
npx skillsauth add narumiruna/agent-skills resolving-edge-casesInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Use this to actively inspect relevant code, find plausible edge-case bugs, and fix or harden them. Do not wait for the user to enumerate edge cases.
When the user does not provide files, a commit, or a diff, inspect git status --short and start with relevant staged, unstaged, and untracked paths. For a branch or pull request, determine its target from repository or PR context and include paths from the merge-base diff, such as git diff --name-only <target>...HEAD; do not assume the target is main or master. If no changed path applies, inspect the files implied by the request; if no scope can be inferred, ask for one target.
Consider these only when relevant:
development
Score or compare one or more agent skills across trigger clarity, workflow actionability, safety boundaries, verification rigor, incremental knowledge value, and leanness. Use only when the user explicitly asks for ratings, numerical quality scores, rubric-based scorecards, or scored comparisons; use creating-agent-skills for unscored reviews or revisions.
development
Assess or improve an existing codebase's architecture when the user asks about module boundaries, coupling, scattered ownership, testability, change locality, deep modules, seams, or behavior-preserving structural refactoring. Use for cross-module design rather than ordinary diff review or a confirmed edge-case bug fix.
development
Perform read-only security audits, vulnerability assessments, or threat-focused reviews of diffs, pull requests, code paths, or explicitly scoped repositories when security is the primary objective or acceptance criterion. Use reviewing-code for ordinary review with baseline security coverage and hardening-code-paths for fixing confirmed findings.
development
Run iterative multi-reviewer panels over a code diff, verify their findings, apply explicitly authorized fixes, and re-review the updated change until it passes or reaches a stopping condition. Use when the user asks for a panel loop, multi-model code-review consensus, or a review-fix-re-review cycle.