Wow Applying Fixer Workflow

Applying Fixer Workflow

Common workflow pattern for all fixer agents in the maker-checker-fixer three-stage quality pipeline.

When This Skill Loads

This Skill auto-loads for fixer agents that need standardized workflow for applying validated fixes from checker audit reports.

Core Fixer Workflow

1. Report Discovery

Auto-detect with manual override (default pattern):

# Auto-detect latest audit report for agent family
ls -t generated-reports/{agent-family}-*-audit.md | head -1

Implementation Steps:

1. Auto-detect latest: Find most recent audit report in generated-reports/
2. Allow manual override: Accept explicit report path from user
3. Verify report exists: Check file exists before proceeding
4. Parse report format: Extract UUID chain and timestamp for fix report

Report Naming: Uses 4-part format per Temporary Files Convention:

• Pattern: {agent-family}__{uuid-chain}__{timestamp}__audit.md
• Example: docs__a1b2c3__2025-12-14--20-45__audit.md

2. Validation Strategy

CRITICAL PRINCIPLE: NEVER trust checker findings blindly. ALWAYS re-validate before applying fixes.

For EACH finding in audit report:

Read finding → Re-execute validation check → Assess confidence level

HIGH_CONFIDENCE:
  - Re-validation confirms issue exists
  - Issue is objective and verifiable
  - Apply fix automatically

MEDIUM_CONFIDENCE:
  - Re-validation unclear or ambiguous
  - Issue is subjective or context-dependent
  - Skip fix, flag as "needs manual review"

FALSE_POSITIVE:
  - Re-validation disproves issue
  - Skip fix, report to user
  - Suggest checker improvement

Confidence Assessment Criteria:

HIGH Confidence (Apply automatically):

• Objective, verifiable errors
• Clear violation of documented standards
• Pattern-based errors with known fixes
• File-based errors (paths, syntax, format)

MEDIUM Confidence (Manual review):

• Subjective quality judgments
• Context-dependent issues
• Ambiguous requirements
• Risky refactoring changes

FALSE_POSITIVE (Skip and report):

• Re-validation disproves the issue
• Checker misunderstood context
• Checker used wrong verification source
• Finding no longer applicable

3. Mode Parameter Handling

Support mode parameter for quality-gate workflows:

Mode Levels:

• lax: Process CRITICAL findings only (skip HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
• normal: Process CRITICAL + HIGH findings only (skip MEDIUM/LOW)
• strict: Process CRITICAL + HIGH + MEDIUM findings (skip LOW)
• ocd: Process all findings (CRITICAL + HIGH + MEDIUM + LOW)

Implementation:

1. Parse audit report and categorize findings by criticality
2. Apply mode filter before re-validation:
   - lax: Only process CRITICAL findings
   - normal: Process CRITICAL + HIGH findings
   - strict: Process CRITICAL + HIGH + MEDIUM findings
   - ocd: Process all findings
3. Track skipped findings for reporting
4. Document skipped findings in fix report

Reporting Skipped Findings:

## Skipped Findings (Below Mode Threshold)

**Mode Level**: normal (fixing CRITICAL/HIGH only)

**MEDIUM findings** (X skipped - reported but not fixed):

1. [File path] - [Issue description]

**LOW findings** (X skipped - reported but not fixed):

1. [File path] - [Issue description]

**Note**: Run with `mode=strict` or `mode=ocd` to fix these findings.

4. Fix Application

Automatic Application (HIGH confidence only):

• Apply ALL HIGH_CONFIDENCE fixes automatically
• NO confirmation prompts (user already reviewed checker report)
• Skip MEDIUM_CONFIDENCE findings (flag for manual review)
• Skip FALSE_POSITIVE findings (report to improve checker)
• Use appropriate tools based on file location:
  • .claude/ folders: Use Bash tools (sed, awk, heredoc)
  • docs/ folders: Use Edit tool
  • Other locations: Use appropriate tools per file type

Fix Execution Pattern:

For each HIGH_CONFIDENCE finding:

1. Read current file state
2. Apply fix using appropriate tool
3. Verify fix applied correctly
4. Log fix in fix report (progressive writing)
5. Continue to next finding

5. Fix Report Generation

Generate fix report in generated-reports/ using same UUID chain as audit:

File Naming Pattern:

• Input audit: {agent-family}__{uuid-chain}__{timestamp}__audit.md
• Output fix: {agent-family}__{uuid-chain}__{timestamp}__fix.md
• Preserve UUID chain and timestamp from source audit

Report Structure:

# Fix Report: {Agent Name}

**Status**: In Progress / Complete
**Source Audit**: {path to audit report}
**Timestamp**: {YYYY-MM-DD--HH-MM UTC+7}
**UUID Chain**: {uuid-chain}
**Mode**: {lax/normal/strict/ocd}

---

## Fixes Applied

### Fix 1: {Title}

**Status**: ✅ APPLIED / ⏭️ SKIPPED
**Criticality**: {CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW}
**Confidence**: {HIGH/MEDIUM/FALSE_POSITIVE}
**File**: {path}

**Issue**: {description}

**Changes Applied**: {before → after}

**Tool Used**: {Edit/Bash sed/etc}

---

## Skipped Findings

### {Reason for skipping}

**Count**: X findings

1. {File} - {Issue} - {Reason}

---

## Summary

**Fixes Applied**: X
**Fixes Skipped**: Y (Z MEDIUM_CONFIDENCE, W FALSE_POSITIVE)
**Skipped by Mode**: M (below mode threshold)

**Status**: Complete
**Completed**: {timestamp}

Progressive Writing: Write findings as they're processed, not buffered to end.

6. Trust Model: Checker Verifies, Fixer Applies

Key Principle: Fixer trusts checker's verification work (separation of concerns).

Why Fixers Don't Have Web Tools:

1. Separation of Concerns: Checker does expensive web verification once
2. Performance: Avoid duplicate web requests
3. Clear Responsibility: Checker = research/verification, Fixer = application
4. Audit Trail: Checker documents all sources in audit report
5. Trust Model: Fixer trusts checker's documented verification

How Fixer Re-validates Without Web Access:

• Read audit report and extract checker's documented sources
• Analyze checker's cited URLs, registry data, API docs
• Apply pattern matching for known error types
• Perform file-based checks (syntax, format, consistency)
• Conservative approach: When in doubt → MEDIUM confidence

When Fixer Doubts a Finding:

• Classify as MEDIUM or FALSE_POSITIVE (don't apply)
• Document reasoning in fix report
• Provide actionable feedback for checker improvement
• Flag for manual review

Integration with Other Skills

Required Skills (should be in fixer's skills: frontmatter):

• wow-applying-maker-checker-fixer - Three-stage workflow context
• wow-assessing-criticality-confidence - Criticality and confidence levels
• wow-generating-validation-reports - Report format and progressive writing

Related Documentation:

• Fixer Confidence Levels Convention
• Maker-Checker-Fixer Pattern
• Temporary Files Convention

Tool Requirements

Fixers typically need:

• Read: Read audit reports and files to fix
• Edit: Apply fixes to docs/ files
• Bash: Apply fixes to .claude/ files (sed, awk, heredoc)
• Write: Generate fix reports
• Glob/Grep: Optional - for pattern matching and validation

NO Web Tools: Fixers intentionally lack WebFetch/WebSearch (trust checker's verification).

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: Simple File-Based Fix

Finding: Broken internal link in docs/file.md
Re-validation: Check if target file exists
Confidence: HIGH (objective - file either exists or doesn't)
Fix: Update link path using Edit tool

Pattern 2: Subjective Quality Fix

Finding: Paragraph too long (10 lines)
Re-validation: Count lines - yes, 10 lines
Confidence: MEDIUM (subjective - maybe intentional for readability)
Action: Skip, flag for manual review

Pattern 3: False Positive

Finding: Command syntax incorrect
Re-validation: Check command against checker's cited source
Result: Command is actually correct, checker misread docs
Confidence: FALSE_POSITIVE
Action: Skip fix, report to improve checker

Pattern 4: Mode-Filtered Finding

Finding: LOW criticality typo
Mode: normal (CRITICAL/HIGH only)
Action: Skip due to mode filter, document in report

Best Practices

1. Always Re-validate: Never apply fixes blindly from audit
2. Conservative Confidence: When uncertain → MEDIUM (manual review)
3. Progressive Writing: Write fix results immediately, don't buffer
4. Tool Selection: Bash for .claude/, Edit for docs/, appropriate for others
5. Preserve Context: Maintain UUID chain from audit to fix report
6. Document Reasoning: Explain why fixes were skipped
7. Mode Awareness: Respect mode parameter thresholds
8. Trust Checker: Don't try to independently verify web-based findings

Example Workflow Execution

1. Auto-detect latest audit: docs**a1b2c3**2025-12-14--20-45\_\_audit.md
2. Parse 10 findings: 3 CRITICAL, 4 HIGH, 2 MEDIUM, 1 LOW
3. Apply mode filter (normal): Process 7 findings (skip 2 MEDIUM, 1 LOW)
4. For each of 7 findings:
   - Read finding details
   - Re-execute validation check
   - Assess confidence:
     - Finding 1: HIGH → Apply fix
     - Finding 2: MEDIUM → Skip, flag for manual review
     - Finding 3: FALSE_POSITIVE → Skip, report to checker
     - Finding 4-7: HIGH → Apply fixes
5. Generate fix report: docs**a1b2c3**2025-12-14--20-45\_\_fix.md
6. Summary: 5 applied, 1 manual review, 1 false positive, 3 skipped by mode

Key Takeaways

• Fixers are careful: Always re-validate before applying changes
• Fixers are conservative: When uncertain → skip for manual review
• Fixers are trusting: Trust checker's documented verification work
• Fixers are mode-aware: Respect quality threshold from mode parameter
• Fixers are transparent: Generate detailed fix reports with reasoning
• Fixers are autonomous: Apply HIGH confidence fixes without prompts

This workflow ensures consistent, safe, and auditable fix application across all fixer agents.