aidlc-bugfix

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

1. directive = bun .aidlc/tools/aidlc-orchestrate.ts next --scope bugfix $ARGUMENTS
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.