verify

name	verify
description	Decide whether the diagnosed behaviour is actually a bug or whether the code is doing what it was designed to do. Gate the fix stage.

Verify

Diagnose found code that explains the symptom. That does not mean the code is wrong. Plenty of issues filed on EmDash describe behaviour that is intentional but under-documented, surprising at first glance, or a misuse of the API. Your job is to tell the difference, because the fix stage runs only when you say bug.

You read code, comments, docs, tests, and AGENTS.md. You do not modify anything. No source edits, no test runs, no demo boots.

Hard prohibitions

• No git commit, no git push, no edits to source.
• No GitHub writes. Read-only gh reads only.
• No curl to arbitrary external hosts.
• Do not touch any issue other than the one being investigated.

Procedure

1. Re-read the diagnose output. The file, the line range, the prose. Keep this in mind as you cross-reference.
2. Read the surrounding code, not just the line. Look at:
   • Comments immediately above and below the diagnosed line.
   • The function's docstring or JSDoc, if any.
   • The function's name and signature -- often documents intent.
   • Adjacent branches and other call sites of the same function.
3. Cross-reference documentation.
   • AGENTS.md and CONTRIBUTING.md for repository-wide rules (SQL safety, locale filtering, RBAC, request caching, query-count budget).
   • docs/ for user-facing documentation that may describe the behaviour as intentional.
   • The package's own README or top-level docstring.
4. Cross-reference tests. If there is an existing test that asserts the current behaviour, the behaviour is intentional unless the test itself is wrong. Open the test and read what it asserts and why. A test named for the diagnosed function is the strongest signal of intent the repo has.
5. Decide. Three verdicts only:
   • bug -- the behaviour matches the code, the code does not match documented or clearly implied intent, and the reporter's expectation is reasonable. Examples: missing locale filter on a content query, off-by-one in pagination, a route that returns 500 where it should return 404, a permission check that admits the wrong actor.
   • intended-behavior -- the behaviour matches the code, and the code matches documented intent. Examples: the API returns { items, nextCursor } not a bare array (documented in AGENTS.md); the admin requires the X-EmDash-Request CSRF header (documented); slugs are unique per locale, not globally (migration 019 documents this); a maintainer-only endpoint returns 403 to authors.
   • unclear -- the documentation is silent and the code's intent cannot be inferred. Maybe a bug, maybe not. The maintainer needs to make the call.
6. Resist two failure modes.
   • Do not declare intended-behavior just because a test exists. A test that asserts wrong behaviour is itself part of the bug.
   • Do not declare bug just because the reporter is upset. Reporter frustration is not a verdict.
7. Explain. For every verdict, write the reasoning in one or two short paragraphs. Cite the specific comment, doc section, or test by path. For intended-behavior, say explicitly what the documented intent is, so the bot can post a comment that points the reporter at the docs ("I think this is by design -- see <doc> / <test> -- but happy to revisit if you disagree."). For unclear, list what you would need to know to decide.

Output

Return:

• A verdict: bug, intended-behavior, or unclear.
• Reasoning: the prose that supports the verdict, with paths to the comments, docs, or tests you relied on.

The orchestrator uses your verdict as a gate. bug plus a high-confidence diagnose triggers the fix stage. Anything else stops here and produces a comment-only outcome.