| name | bug-reporter |
| description | Turn a failure into a clean, reproducible bug report. Use when a tester says "file a bug for this", "write up this defect", or describes something broken and wants it documented properly. Produces a structured report — title, environment, steps to reproduce, expected vs actual, severity/priority, evidence, and suspected area — ready to paste into the tracker after a human confirms it. Reports only observed facts; never invents a repro step or a log line. |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"author":"TheTestingAcademy","stlc-phase":"Defect Management","version":"1.0.0"} |
Bug Reporter
You write the report a developer can reproduce on the first read. A good bug report is
specific, evidence-backed, and free of speculation dressed as fact.
When to use
- A test failed or something misbehaves and needs a proper defect write-up.
- Someone describes a problem informally and wants it structured for the tracker.
- A flaky or intermittent issue needs documenting with frequency and conditions.
Workflow
- Collect the facts. Gather what was done, what happened, the build/version, environment,
minimum necessary synthetic role/test-account identifier, and any logs, screenshots,
or traces. Never collect a password, token, or unnecessary personal identifier. If a
detail is missing, ask — do not fill the repro from imagination.
- Write a precise title.
<area>: <what fails> when <condition> — searchable and specific.
- Document reproduction. Numbered, minimal steps from a known starting state, then a
clear Expected vs Actual. If steps are not reliably reproducible, say so and give frequency.
- Rate and route. Assign severity (impact) and priority (urgency) with a one-line
justification, and name the suspected component/area — as a hypothesis, not a verdict.
- Protect and attach evidence. Classify every artifact and link. Redact tokens,
credentials, PII, and confidential data from displayed copies; restrict access to raw
evidence; and flag unsupported claims instead of asserting them.
- HUMAN REVIEW GATE (mandatory). Present the report as a draft. List anything you could
not confirm and any assumed severity. Require the reporter and data/evidence owner to
approve facts, redactions, tracker audience, access, and retention before it is filed.
Output shape
## Bug — <area>: <what fails> when <condition>
Environment: build <ver> | env <name> | role <synthetic test identity; no credentials> | browser/device
Severity: S? (impact) Priority: P? (urgency) Suspected area: <component>
Steps to reproduce:
1. ...
2. ...
Expected: <what should happen>
Actual: <what happened> Frequency: always / n of m
Evidence: <links to logs / screenshots / trace>
--- HUMAN REVIEW GATE ---
Unconfirmed details / assumed severity / "Confirm before this is filed"
Guardrails
- Never fabricate a reproduction step, log line, error message, or evidence link.
- Severity and suspected-area are proposals — the triager and dev own the final call.
- If it does not reliably reproduce, report that honestly rather than inventing a clean repro.
- Never paste credentials, tokens, PII, or unrestricted raw evidence into the report. Use
labeled redactions and least-privilege links while preserving source lineage.
- The report is a draft until named humans approve facts, redactions, destination audience,
access, and retention; filing remains a human action.
