Sentry Find Bugs

Publisher: Sentry · Editorial profile by AI Tools Ratings · Review method

What task is this skill designed for?

Review changed code for bugs, security concerns and quality regressions with evidence from surrounding implementation. Fits a targeted pre-merge review rather than a generic style cleanup.

What input and output should you expect?

Input: Supply the comparison base and complete diff, relevant entry points, tests and intended input constraints. Include external interfaces affected by the change.

Output: Findings tied to locations, severity, a concrete failure path and a suggested fix. A justified no-findings result is preferable to invented issues.

What does it need to run?

Readable Git repository; gh can help identify the remote default branch. Enough context is required to inspect all changed files instead of accepting truncated output.

Publisher documents Claude Code installation and skills.sh support for compatible agents including Cursor, Cline and GitHub Copilot. Host permissions and invocation behavior still require validation.

How should you approach installation?

1. Read the pinned SKILL.md and repository LICENSE; compare project-specific conventions with your own instructions.
2. Follow the publisher installation guidance for your host, retaining the full skill folder and references; begin in a disposable repository with minimal permissions.
3. Run the suggested draft or read-only trial, review its acceptance checklist, and grant write or remote permissions only for the intended task.

Installation guide: discovery, dependencies and runtime checks

What files, accounts or data can it access?

Reads code and repository metadata; host model processing may include sensitive source. Keep the trial read-only and require a separate decision for edits, commands with side effects or publication.

What does the skill cost?

No separate Skill purchase price is stated in the reviewed repository. The host agent subscription or model usage is separate; repository services and any authorized CI jobs may add costs. A local drafting trial does not require paid remote execution.

What are its limits and alternatives?

Source inspection cannot prove absence of vulnerabilities. A changed function may be safe because of a caller guard, and a suspicious pattern is not a finding until the input-to-effect path is established.

Choose Sentry Code Review for broader maintainability feedback, or a dedicated security assessment for a threat-model-driven audit.

What could you ask in a small trial?

Try this with a small sample:

Review this branch that changes a pagination bound. Trace the caller validation and existing tests, identify an input that would return the wrong page if one exists, and report only supported defects. Do not modify files or run external services.

How would you verify the result?

1. The complete diff and relevant guards were considered.
2. Each finding explains the triggering input and resulting incorrect behavior.
3. No speculative vulnerability or fabricated execution result is presented as fact.

Use a baseline and record acceptance evidence before treating a successful task as a reliable workflow.

Which source and license were checked?

Read the reviewed SKILL.md at its pinned commit · Complete reviewed folder

Repository and current publisher guidance

Checked: 2026-10-28

Apache-2.0 — repository LICENSE at the reviewed commit. License evidence

Report an error, license concern or request a new review.