| name | bug-triage |
| description | Turn a vague bug report (Slack message, support ticket, "it's broken on mobile sometimes") into an actionable ticket — searchable symptom title, numbered repro steps from a clean state, expected vs actual, severity separated from priority, evidence tagged reported-vs-verified, and labeled hypotheses instead of root-cause guesses. Use when the user wants to triage a bug, write up a bug report, turn a complaint into a ticket, or make a flaky issue actionable. |
bug-triage
Converts the bug report someone sent into the ticket an engineer can start — without a round of "can you clarify?" first. The discipline: separate what was reported from what's verified, separate severity from priority, and label every guess as a guess. Triage shapes the work; fixing it is feature-implement-loop (or a human) downstream.
How to respond
-
Ingest the raw report — Slack thread, support ticket, user email, a teammate's "X is broken". Mine it for the six ticket fields before asking anything. Then ask at most 3 questions, ranked by diagnostic value — the answers that most shrink the search space (exact error text, when it last worked, does it reproduce on a second account/device). Everything unconfirmed proceeds with a tag, not a guess.
-
One bug per ticket. A report with three symptoms becomes three tickets (or one ticket + a "split out" note naming the others). Multi-symptom tickets close half-fixed.
-
Write the title as symptom + condition, searchable. ✅ "Checkout button stays disabled after removing an expired coupon (Safari 17, guest cart)" — ❌ "Checkout broken", ❌ "Coupon bug". Six months from now someone greps tickets for "disabled checkout" — that's who the title is for.
-
Tag every claim [reported] or [verified]. What the reporter says happened vs what was confirmed by logs, a screenshot, or your own reproduction. Triage that presents [reported] as fact sends an engineer chasing a description instead of a behavior.
-
Number the repro steps from a clean state — fresh session, named test account, stated starting URL — each step an observable action, ending in the failure. If reproduction is unknown, the ticket says "No repro yet" and lists the exact diagnostics to collect (error text verbatim, console/server log window with timestamp, HAR capture, screen recording) — never invented steps that "probably" trigger it.
-
Split expected vs actual into two concrete lines. ✅ Expected: "order total recalculates to pre-coupon price" / Actual: "total keeps the discount, button stays disabled" — ❌ "it doesn't work right". Attach the verbatim error message if one exists; paraphrased errors are unsearchable.
-
Call severity and priority separately with one line of reasoning each, using the matrix in templates/bug-ticket.md:
- Severity = worst plausible user impact: S1 data loss / security / payment broken · S2 core flow broken, no workaround · S3 degraded, workaround exists · S4 cosmetic
- Priority = business urgency: P1 drop everything · P2 this sprint · P3 backlog
A cosmetic bug on the pricing page during launch week is S4/P1 — the separation is the point. State the blast radius guess: who's affected (
all users / Safari only / one tenant) and tag it.
-
Offer hypotheses as hypotheses. Up to 3, each with a 5-minute check that would confirm or kill it. ✅ "H1: expired-coupon validation leaves cart state locked — check: apply/remove a valid coupon, see if button recovers". Never present the leading hypothesis as the cause; that anchors the investigation on a guess.
-
Finish with duplicate-search hints — 2–3 search strings for the tracker (error code, symptom phrasing, component name) so the ticket isn't the third copy.
Useful references in this skill
Quality bar
- An engineer can start without contacting the reporter. Either the repro stands alone or the no-repro diagnostics list says exactly what to collect.
- Title findable by symptom search. If the words a future reporter would type don't appear in it, retitle.
- Zero untagged claims. Every factual statement is
[reported], [verified], or [assumption] — a triager's authority comes from the tags.
- Severity and priority each have a stated reason, and they were judged independently — one line each, no shared justification.
- Hypotheses ≤ 3, each with a concrete check. A hypothesis without a check is a vibe.
- The verbatim error text is present when any error was shown — quoted exactly, not paraphrased.
When to use this skill
- ✅ A Slack/support complaint needs to become a ticket an engineer can pick up
- ✅ "Can you write this up properly?" for a vaguely described bug
- ✅ Triaging an inbound bug queue into severity/priority order
- ✅ A flaky, "sometimes" bug that needs a diagnostics plan instead of guesswork
When NOT to use this skill
- ❌ Actually fixing the bug — hand the ticket to
feature-implement-loop or a human
- ❌ A production incident in progress — mitigate first; this is queue work, not response work
- ❌ The post-incident analysis — that's
postmortem-generator
- ❌ A feature request wearing a bug costume ("bug: there's no dark mode") — route to
user-story-splitter
Anti-patterns to avoid
- ❌ Root-cause cosplay. "It's probably the cache" stated as fact in the ticket body — now the investigation starts at the guess instead of the evidence.
- ❌ Repro steps that skip state. "1. Go to checkout 2. See bug" — which account, which cart, which browser? Steps that don't start clean don't reproduce.
- ❌ Severity inflated to get attention (everything S1) or priority used as severity (P1 because a VP reported it — that's priority, write it as priority).
- ❌ The interrogation. Ten questions back to the reporter before writing anything; three ranked ones, then proceed with tags.
- ❌ Paraphrased error messages. "Some kind of permissions error" when the dialog said
ERR_TENANT_SCOPE_403 — the exact string is the most diagnostic fact available.
- ❌ The kitchen-sink ticket. Three symptoms, two feature requests, and a screenshot dump under one title. Split it.
