culprit
Deterministic, offline root-cause analysis for coding agents: find the commit that introduced a bug, and verify a fix is complete before committing.
README
culprit
<!-- mcp-name: io.github.noordeen123/culprit -->
<p align="center"> <a href="https://github.com/noordeen123/culprit/actions/workflows/ci.yml"><img src="https://github.com/noordeen123/culprit/actions/workflows/ci.yml/badge.svg" alt="CI"></a> <a href="https://pypi.org/project/culprit/"><img src="https://img.shields.io/pypi/v/culprit.svg" alt="PyPI"></a> <a href="https://pypi.org/project/culprit/"><img src="https://img.shields.io/pypi/pyversions/culprit.svg" alt="Python versions"></a> <a href="LICENSE"><img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/License-MIT-blue.svg" alt="License: MIT"></a> </p>
<p align="center"> <b>Root-cause analysis for agent-driven development.</b><br> Your coding agent finds what introduced a bug, and verifies its own fix is complete before it commits. </p>
<p align="center"> <a href="#quick-start">Quick start</a> · <a href="#the-tools">Tools</a> · <a href="#does-it-actually-work">Accuracy</a> · <a href="docs/ARCHITECTURE.md">Architecture</a> · <a href="https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io/v0.1/servers?search=io.github.noordeen123/culprit">MCP registry</a> </p>
<p align="center"> <img src="docs/demo.gif" width="900" alt="An agent's fix scores partial with two missed call sites, then complete after patching them"> <br> <em>A real run. The fix patched one caller of <code>parse_config</code> and missed two, so it scores <code>partial</code>.</em> </p>
Why an agent needs this
An agent is good at writing a patch and bad at knowing whether the patch is done. It cannot see that the helper it just changed has three other callers, or that the bug it is fixing was introduced by a refactor two years ago. culprit answers both from git history, as structured JSON it can act on rather than prose it has to interpret:
| The agent asks | culprit answers |
|---|---|
| "What introduced this bug?" | Ranked suspect commits, the author's intent, the releases it shipped in |
| "Is my fix complete?" | verify_fix: missed call sites, whether a test shipped, a risk level |
| "What could this change break?" | Reverse-import dependents, covering tests, high-risk shared modules |
- ⚡️ Instant. No test runs, no bisect. It blames the fix's own lines back through refactors.
- 🔒 Read-only and offline. Never writes to your repo or PR. No API key, no network.
- 🔌 MCP-native. 11 tools over stdio, on the official MCP registry, plus a one-command plugin.
- 🗣️ Language-agnostic. Suspects work anywhere git does. Blast radius reads 12 language families.
Does it actually work?
Benchmarked against 50 real regressions, 25 from git and 25 from
systemd, where the introducing commit is known from each
fix's Fixes: trailer (author-verified ground truth). Given only the fix commit, culprit blames
the removed lines to rank the commits that introduced the bug.
| Metric | Result |
|---|---|
| Introducing commit ranked #1 | 50% (25/50) |
| Introducing commit in the top-5 suspect set | 66% (33/50) |
Deterministic and offline, on large C codebases the engine has never seen. Reproduce with
python benchmarks/run.py, which clones the repos and scores every case.
Quick start
Claude Code plugin (installs the MCP server plus a skill that tells the agent when to use it):
/plugin marketplace add noordeen123/culprit
/plugin install culprit@culprit
Any MCP client (Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code, Codex CLI, Zed, Continue, Cline, Amazon Q, Goose):
{
"mcpServers": {
"culprit": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "culprit[mcp]", "culprit-mcp"]
}
}
}
CLI, no agent required:
uvx culprit # run from PyPI on demand
rca --verify-fix patch.diff # exit 0 if complete, 1 otherwise
Needs Python 3.10+ and uv for the MCP server. The CLI runs on 3.9+.
The tools
| Tool | What it answers |
|---|---|
analyze |
Full RCA in one call: classify, suspects or blast radius, risk, test impact |
verify_fix |
Is this diff safe to commit? complete / partial / risky, plus the missed call sites |
find_suspects |
Rank the commits that introduced the bug |
check_completeness |
Call sites of the changed symbol the fix did not touch |
get_intent |
The introducing commit's message, linked PR, referenced issues |
get_evolution |
Per-commit history of the buggy lines via git log -L |
get_risk_score |
QA gate score (0 to 100, low/medium/high) with contributing factors |
get_blast_radius |
Feature impact: dependents, covering tests, high-risk files |
get_test_impact |
Minimal test set to run for this change |
classify_change |
Bugfix vs feature, with evidence |
from_trace |
RCA straight from a stack trace, no diff or PR needed |
verify_fix, the pre-commit gate
The agent runs this on its own diff before committing:
verdict:completewhen no untouched call site is left behind,partialwhen one was missed,riskywhen risk is high. The verdict is the completeness axis; test coverage is the separate confidence axis onrisk_level.untouched_references: the exact files that still use the changed symbol. This is the list the agent goes and patches.skipped_symbols,adds_test,notes: what was too widely used to check, whether a test shipped, and what to do next.
Loop until complete, then commit. That is the whole idea.
CLI and CI
rca # current branch vs the configured base
rca --last # the latest commit only
rca --pr 16786 # a specific PR (uses the PR's own base)
rca --trace crash.txt # RCA from a stack trace, no fix or PR needed
rca --verify-fix patch.diff # check a diff before committing
rca --select-tests # print the tests to run for this change
rca --html report.html --open # a single self-contained HTML report
rca --pr 16889 --fail-on high # exit non-zero when QA risk is high
rca serve --repo /path # local web UI with a base picker
CI gate: risk via exit code only, no PR comments, no writes. Copy
examples/github-actions/culprit-pr.yml into
.github/workflows/:
- run: pip install "culprit>=0.3.0"
- env: { GH_TOKEN: "${{ github.token }}" }
run: rca --pr ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} --fail-on high
HTML report
--html writes one self-contained file. No CDN, opens offline, attaches to CI. It opens with the
verdict: a scored QA risk with the factors behind it, and the prime suspect with how long the bug
lived.
<p align="center"> <img src="docs/report-verdict.png" width="820" alt="QA risk scored medium 48 out of 100 with contributing factors, and the prime suspect commit with the releases it shipped in"> </p>
Then it reconstructs how the bug got there. Every commit that touched the buggy line, from creation through the commit that broke it (red, with the exact diff) to the fix (green):
<p align="center"> <img src="docs/report-timeline.png" width="820" alt="Line evolution timeline: origin, three modifications, the breaking commit changing w times h to w plus h, then the fix restoring it"> </p>
<p align="center"><em>Every node expands to its diff. <a href="docs/report.png">See the full report</a>.</em></p>
vs git bisect
git bisect |
culprit | |
|---|---|---|
| Input | A reliable failing test | The fix diff (or a stack trace) |
| Method | Checks out commits and runs the test | Blames the fix's lines plus git log -L |
| Speed | Minutes (about log2(N) test runs) | Instant |
| Output | First bad commit | Suspect set, intent, lifecycle, completeness, risk |
| Confidence | Proof | Strong heuristic |
--bisect "<cmd>" runs a real bisect as an optional confirmation layer, in a throwaway
git worktree so your checkout is never touched. When the first failing commit matches the
blamed suspect, the report stamps it confirmed by git bisect.
Architecture
One normalized context in, one structured JSON result out. The only non-deterministic step is the optional LLM narrative, isolated behind an adapter so the engine runs with no API key.
<p align="center"> <picture> <source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="docs/workflow-dark.svg"> <img src="docs/workflow-light.svg" width="980" alt="Two pipelines. Root cause: input, pr_context, classify, suspect, risk score, output. Verify: proposed diff, verify_fix, verdict."> </picture> </p>
Two lanes, one engine. Every module writes one slice of the result, so nothing cares whether
the target came from gh, the REST API, local git, or a pasted stack trace. Full module map:
docs/ARCHITECTURE.md.
Configuration
The base branch resolves in order: the --base flag, then CULPRIT_BASE, then .culprit.toml
(base = "origin/main"), then HEAD~1. --last forces the latest-commit view.
PR titles and labels use the GitHub CLI when present, or the unauthenticated REST API for public
repos (set GITHUB_TOKEN or GITLAB_TOKEN to raise limits). Deep links cover GitHub, GitLab,
Bitbucket, and Gitea. Blast radius reads imports across JS/TS, Python, Go, Java/Kotlin, Ruby,
C/C++, C#, PHP, Rust, Scala, and Swift.
Contributing
pip install -e ".[dev]" && pytest
Module map and data shapes: docs/ARCHITECTURE.md. Publishing the MCP
server to the registries: docs/PUBLISHING.md. MIT licensed.
推荐服务器
Baidu Map
百度地图核心API现已全面兼容MCP协议,是国内首家兼容MCP协议的地图服务商。
Playwright MCP Server
一个模型上下文协议服务器,它使大型语言模型能够通过结构化的可访问性快照与网页进行交互,而无需视觉模型或屏幕截图。
Magic Component Platform (MCP)
一个由人工智能驱动的工具,可以从自然语言描述生成现代化的用户界面组件,并与流行的集成开发环境(IDE)集成,从而简化用户界面开发流程。
Audiense Insights MCP Server
通过模型上下文协议启用与 Audiense Insights 账户的交互,从而促进营销洞察和受众数据的提取和分析,包括人口统计信息、行为和影响者互动。
VeyraX
一个单一的 MCP 工具,连接你所有喜爱的工具:Gmail、日历以及其他 40 多个工具。
graphlit-mcp-server
模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器实现了 MCP 客户端与 Graphlit 服务之间的集成。 除了网络爬取之外,还可以将任何内容(从 Slack 到 Gmail 再到播客订阅源)导入到 Graphlit 项目中,然后从 MCP 客户端检索相关内容。
Kagi MCP Server
一个 MCP 服务器,集成了 Kagi 搜索功能和 Claude AI,使 Claude 能够在回答需要最新信息的问题时执行实时网络搜索。
e2b-mcp-server
使用 MCP 通过 e2b 运行代码。
Neon MCP Server
用于与 Neon 管理 API 和数据库交互的 MCP 服务器
Exa MCP Server
模型上下文协议(MCP)服务器允许像 Claude 这样的 AI 助手使用 Exa AI 搜索 API 进行网络搜索。这种设置允许 AI 模型以安全和受控的方式获取实时的网络信息。