| name | aidlc-bugfix |
| generated-by | aidlc-runner-gen |
| description | Run the AI-DLC workflow with the bugfix scope baked in — no scope detection. Fix a specific bug. Packaging over `/aidlc --scope bugfix`, which works without this skill.
|
| argument-hint | [description | --status | --stage <slug|#> | --phase <name|#>] |
| user-invocable | true |
AI-DLC — bugfix scope
Drive the AI-DLC engine with the bugfix scope fixed. This is the same
deterministic forwarding loop the /aidlc orchestrator runs, with --scope bugfix baked into the first next so scope detection is skipped. The
engine owns all routing; the conductor persona arrives on the first directive's
conductor_persona field — adopt it for the whole run.
The loop
directive = bun .aidlc/tools/aidlc-orchestrate.ts next --scope bugfix $ARGUMENTS- Before acting on each directive, read
.aidlc/aidlc-common/protocols/stage-protocol.md once per session,
then read every
.aidlc/aidlc-common/protocols/stage-protocol-<module>.md named by
directive.protocol_modules. Load every listed module before acting; skip
only a module already loaded earlier in this session. Then act on
directive.kind exactly as the orchestrator does (run-stage / invoke-swarm /
ask / print / error / done).
bun .aidlc/tools/aidlc-orchestrate.ts report --stage <directive.stage> --result <outcome> [--user-input "<text>"] when the directive names a stage; omit --stage only for non-stage report round-trips.- Repeat from step 1 until
directive.kind == done.
Pass $ARGUMENTS through verbatim after --scope bugfix; the engine parses
any flags (--status, --stage, …) and the --scope from the
state file always wins on an existing workflow, so re-running a started workflow
resumes it. To run a different scope, use /aidlc --scope <other> instead.
Starting unrelated new work?
Before you forward $ARGUMENTS on step 1, make the SAME recognise-vs-route
judgment the /aidlc orchestrator makes: does this input continue the
active intent, or does it describe a genuinely new, unrelated piece of work?
This matters most when the active intent is already complete: then next
correctly returns done (the engine is read-only and never creates alongside a
live intent), and the loop above would simply stop. New work is NOT a
continuation; the escape hatch is next --new-intent.
-
Default to CONTINUATION. Treat the input as new-work ONLY when it clearly
names a distinct feature/bug/unit unrelated to the active intent's subject
(bun .aidlc/tools/aidlc-utility.ts intent --json gives its slug and
status). When in doubt, continue: false-positive offers are the main risk.
-
On genuine new-work, OFFER, never auto-create. Surface an
AskUserQuestion showing the active intent and the proposed new one, including
the scope you'd give the new intent. Default that scope to this runner's baked
bugfix (the new work is likely the same flavour that made the user reach for
this command), but if the new work clearly fits a DIFFERENT scope, propose that
instead, and name it so the human can correct it. Lead the affirmative option
with "Yes" (e.g. "Yes, start a second intent"). Starting a workflow is a
mutation gated on a human yes.
-
On CONFIRM, re-run next with --new-intent, the confirmed scope, and the
new-work text:
bun .aidlc/tools/aidlc-orchestrate.ts next --new-intent --scope <the confirmed scope> "<the new-work description>"
The engine returns a print directive naming the intent-create command
(with the --label "<2-3 word kebab essence>" placeholder). Act on it exactly
as the loop's print handling describes: create the intent, then, because this is
a NEW, unrelated intent and this session still carries the previous intent's
context, STOP and follow the directive's hand-off: tell the user to start a
fresh session (start a new Copilot CLI session or open a new VS Code agent chat) and invoke /aidlc to begin the
new intent with a clean slate. Nothing is lost; the intent is saved on disk.
-
On DECLINE, proceed with the active intent, the normal loop above.
