bugs-flow

name	bugs-flow
description	Run the standalone evidence-first bug workflow with a single bug doc: analyze, fix, and review. Use when a request includes symptoms, regressions, Sentry issues, logs, crashes, or 'why is this happening?' and you need to investigate, fix, and verify a bug. Not for feature planning, full-arch work, or open-ended optimization loops.
metadata	{"short-description":"Analyze, fix, and verify bugs"}

Bugs Flow

Use this skill for the bug workflow family: analyze, fix, and optionally review.

When to use

• The ask is a bug report, regression, crash, incident, or Sentry investigation.
• The user has symptoms, logs, traces, QA notes, or a bug doc and wants the issue analyzed or fixed.
• The work should be driven by evidence and a single bug doc rather than by a feature plan.

When not to use

• The user wants a repo-wide audit pass or leave-it-running defect hunt rather than one known bug. Use audit-loop.
• The work is planned feature delivery or architecture planning. Use arch-step, arch-mini-plan, or lilarch.
• The task is open-ended optimization or a broad investigation loop rather than a concrete bug. Use goal-loop or north-star-investigation.

Non-negotiables

• Keep one canonical bug doc under docs/bugs/.
• Analyze first. Do not modify code in analyze mode.
• Prefer first-party evidence: Sentry, logs, traces, QA notes, repro steps, and code anchors.
• Only move into fix mode when the bug doc is fix-ready.
• Keep fixes minimal and localized. No runtime fallbacks, silent swallowing, or compatibility shims unless explicitly approved.
• The human-authorized outcome is the corrected behavior for the documented bug. During analyze/initial planning only, include the smallest evidenced directly competing same-contract path needed to fix the shared cause; record the closure or none and freeze it before fix mode. Apply ../_shared/scope-and-convergence.md.
• Fix and review cannot widen that frozen closure. A newly discovered adjacent improvement or owner path needs a human decision; review never reopens generic architecture planning.
• Review side work happens only if the user explicitly asks for review or code review. Once authorized, prefer a new clean same-host native critic; external review remains available when its concrete provider, model, lifecycle, isolation, automation, receipt, or other benefit is worth the added process and integration cost under the shared agent policy.
• Apply $prompt-authoring to every actual populated implementer or critic brief. The human-authorized corrected behavior, frozen closure, safety constraints, and proof obligations are binding. The bug doc's ranked hypotheses, most likely cause, investigation narrative, and candidate fix plan remain challengeable evidence unless a human explicitly selected them.
• Do not let "review" become an excuse to reopen generic architecture planning.

First move

1. Read references/bug-doc-contract.md.
2. Read references/shared-doctrine.md.
3. Read ../_shared/scope-and-convergence.md.
4. Read ../_shared/agent-orchestration-policy.md before dispatching an implementer or critic.
5. Resolve the mode:
   • analyze
   • fix
   • review
6. Resolve DOC_PATH and read it fully if it already exists.
7. If the user asked for fix or review but the doc is not ready, step back and repair the investigation first.
8. Read the mode reference and references/quality-bar.md.

Parent And Child Roles

• The active parent owns the human-authorized bug scope, frozen convergence closure, bug-doc writes, decomposition, result accounting, synthesis, accepted findings, and final review verdict. Capture current git status and the relevant diff before a read-only critic runs, then compare current state before accepting its evidence.
• If implementation is delegated, start the implementer as a new clean same-host native child by default and preserve its exact handle. In Codex set fork_turns: "none"; in Claude use a clean named or custom subagent, not a bare conversation fork or skill context: fork shorthand. Use bounded or full inherited context only for a named dependency that exists solely in chat; ordinary context travels through the bug doc, exact paths, and a bounded brief.
• Each independent review or recheck starts as a different new clean critic with the strongest read-only capability available and an explicit no-edit, no-write contract. Send every accepted repair finding back to the exact implementer that owns the fix; never resume a critic as an implementer and never reuse a prior critic for the next independent gate.
• Implementers and critics may not create children or invoke delegation, consult, or review skills unless the parent explicitly assigns a bounded nested scope and budget. If multiple independent review lenses genuinely help, bound fanout by host slots, shared-file or shared-state collision risk, and the parent's capacity to inspect and integrate every return.
• External review is a transport choice, not a freshness requirement or a prohibited lane. Use it when a concrete benefit is worth its added cost; the same clean critic, read-only, return, parent-state-check, and independent recheck contracts still apply.

Workflow

1) Analyze mode

• Create or repair the bug doc.
• Ingest evidence and write ranked hypotheses.
• Mark the issue fix-ready only when the likely root cause is concrete enough to act on.

2) Fix mode

• Read the bug doc as the canonical evidence and scope record. Treat its human-authorized corrected behavior, frozen closure, constraints, and proof obligations as the implementation contract; do not treat its hypotheses, likely cause, or candidate fix plan as unquestionable.
• Write or tighten the candidate fix plan in the doc without making it the only permissible implementation path.
• Implement the smallest credible fix locally.
• If an implementer child owns the fix, preserve its exact handle so accepted review repairs resume that same role and scope.
• Update verification, risk level, and outcome in the doc.

3) Review mode

• Only when explicitly requested by the user.
• Start a new clean independent critic and audit the implementation against the human-authorized bug contract and current code without letting the critic write files or anchoring it on the bug doc's diagnosis.
• The parent integrates only accepted feedback. Resume the exact implementer for those repairs, allowing it to rebut the finding or proposed direction with code evidence, then use another new clean critic for every independent recheck.
• If no explicit review ask exists, do not launch review side work.

Output expectations

• Update DOC_PATH in every mode.
• Keep console output short:
  • Bug North Star reminder
  • punchline
  • what changed
  • tests or evidence gathered
  • risks or blockers
  • next action

Reference map

• references/bug-doc-contract.md - bug doc structure, evidence rules, Sentry handling, and status transitions
• references/shared-doctrine.md - evidence discipline, anti-fallback rules, and escalation boundaries
• references/analyze.md - create or repair the bug doc and make the issue fix-ready
• references/fix.md - implement the smallest credible fix and keep the doc truthful
• references/review.md - explicit-review-only audit behavior
• references/quality-bar.md - strong vs weak bars for evidence, fix-ready state, and verification