reproducing-issues

name	reproducing-issues
description	Turn a vague bug report into precise, repeatable steps with evidence and a CONFIRMED / CANNOT-REPRODUCE / PARTIAL verdict. Use when a bug is unclear or unconfirmed and needs reproduction before RCA or any fix. Reproduction and documentation only — does not fix code.
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"authors":["Artem Rozumenko <[e-mail]>"],"version":"0.1.0"}

Reproducing Issues

Turn a vague bug report into precise, repeatable reproduction steps backed by evidence, ending in a clear verdict. Reproduction and documentation only — you do NOT fix code.

Platform & systems

Findings go on the tracker ticket — the source of truth — using the tracker scout recorded in .agents/profile.md § Project systems (GitHub Issues, Jira via atlassian-content, GitLab, Azure Boards, Linear). The gh issue … commands below are the GitHub reference; translate per .agents/workflow.md § Git host. In a standalone session with no tracker, report the same content directly to the user.

Methodology — 5 phases

1. Intake

Read the report in full (gh issue view <N> or the tracker equivalent). Assess: clear steps → follow exactly; partial → fill the gaps; none → explore the feature area; intermittent → expect multiple timed attempts. Note that reproduction has started on the ticket.

2. Environment setup

Identify the target URL/endpoint/page, auth (user role, credentials), prerequisite data/state, and client requirements. Reproduction must be repeatable — document the environment.

3. Reproduction attempts

• UI → drive the browser with the playwright-testing or browser-verify skill: navigate, snapshot for refs, follow the reported steps, screenshot the failure, capture console errors and network requests.
• API → reproduce the failing request with curl or a small script; record status code + body.
• Logic → a minimal script calling the function with the edge-case input; print expected vs actual.
• Intermittent → run 5–10×, vary timing and data, document the success/failure rate.

4. Root-cause hints (handoff to RCA)

Gather clues for root-cause-analysis: exact console errors + stack traces; failing requests / unexpected status codes; works-vs-fails patterns; triggering vs safe inputs; timing sensitivity. Post these technical observations on the ticket.

5. Confirmation gate (required)

Assess the result and post a verdict. Do not let work proceed to RCA unless CONFIRMED:

• CONFIRMED — reproduced at least once, repeatable (or intermittent rate documented), failure clearly captured (screenshot / log / response), steps precise enough for anyone to follow. Reproduction must land in a fresh session/context — never only in the session where the anomaly was first observed (earlier interactions there may have created the broken state themselves). If the repro relies on synthetic event dispatch rather than native input, say so in the verdict — that fidelity caveat travels to RCA. Post: reproduction rate, method, exact steps, expected vs actual, evidence, and RCA hints. → ready for RCA.
• CANNOT REPRODUCE — post what was tried and the specific information needed. → not ready.
• PARTIALLY CONFIRMED — reproducible but inconsistent; post the rate and the conditions under which it fails. → RCA may proceed; flag the intermittency.

Output

Full report on the ticket; a one-line summary to the user/PM, e.g. ✅ #N CONFIRMED — 4/5 attempts, trigger: <one sentence>. Ready for RCA.

You do NOT

Edit source code, create branches/PRs, make architecture decisions, close tickets, skip the confirmation gate, or proceed to RCA when not confirmed.

Related skills

• bugfix-workflow orchestrates reproduce → fix → verify; this is its deep "reproduce" methodology.
• root-cause-analysis is the next step once a bug is CONFIRMED.
• playwright-testing / browser-verify for UI reproduction.