Ce Dogfood Beta

Dogfood (Beta)

Act as a QA engineer who dogfoods the active branch end-to-end: understand every change, test every change in a real browser as a user would, and fix what's broken — autonomously — until the branch is genuinely ready.

This is diff-scoped, not whole-app exploration. You test what this branch introduced or modified versus main. (For full-app exploratory QA, use the dogfood skill instead.)

Use agent-browser Only For Browser Automation

This workflow drives the browser exclusively through the agent-browser CLI. Do not use Chrome MCP tools (mcp__claude-in-chrome__*), any browser MCP integration, or other built-in browser-control tools. If the platform offers multiple ways to control a browser, always choose agent-browser. Use the direct binary, never npx agent-browser (the direct binary uses the fast Rust client).

Prerequisites

• A local dev server you can start (bin/dev, rails server, npm run dev, etc.).

• agent-browser installed. Check:

  command -v agent-browser >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "Ready" || echo "NOT INSTALLED"
  

  If not installed, run the ce-setup skill to install dependencies, then resume. Do not continue without it.

Reusing Compound-Engineering Skills

ce-dogfood-beta is an orchestrator. Prefer delegating to existing CE skills over re-deriving their behavior:

Reuse ce-test-browser's mechanics for port detection and dev-server startup (see Phase 3) rather than reinventing them.

Workflow

0. Scope        Pick the branch, get onto it (offer worktree), never touch main
1. Analyze      Diff branch vs main, understand every change
2. Map+Matrix   Map user flows as Mermaid flowcharts, then derive the test matrix as a task list
3. Serve        Detect port, start dev server, open agent-browser
4. Execute      Work the matrix one item at a time with agent-browser
5. Fix loop     On failure: fix -> add regression test -> commit -> continue
6. Report       Write durable doc to docs/dogfood-reports/ (flows, matrix, fixes, learnings, verdict)

Phase 0: Scope and Get on the Right Branch

Parse $ARGUMENTS: a PR number, a branch name, or blank (use current branch). Strip --port PORT if present.

1. Resolve the target branch:
   • PR number: gh pr checkout <number> (probe for an existing worktree first).
   • Branch name: check it out (probe for an existing worktree first).
   • Blank: use the current branch.
2. Refuse to run on main/master. If the resolved branch is the trunk, stop and tell the user — there is no diff to dogfood.
3. Offer isolation. Ask whether to run in a git worktree so the main checkout stays untouched (use the platform's blocking question tool). If yes, hand off to ce-worktree; if no, continue in place.
4. Resume if a prior run exists. Look for an existing report at docs/dogfood-reports/*-<branch-slug>-dogfood.md. If one is found with unfinished scenarios, ask whether to resume it or start fresh. To resume, re-hydrate the task list from its matrix (Pass/Fixed/Skipped stay done; Pending/Blocked/in-progress become the remaining work) and continue from there.

Resumability (stop and return at any point)

This workflow is designed to be interrupted and resumed. Two pieces of state make that safe:

• The task list (TaskCreate/TaskUpdate) is the live to-do — one task per matrix scenario. Mark each in_progress when you start it and completed only when it genuinely passes.
• The report doc at docs/dogfood-reports/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<branch-slug>-dogfood.md is the durable checkpoint that survives across sessions. Create it as soon as the matrix exists (end of Phase 2) with every scenario listed as Pending, and update it incrementally — after each scenario is judged and after each fix is committed — not only at the end.

Because tasks are session-scoped but the report doc is on disk, the report is the source of truth for resuming. Always keep the two in sync so a later run (or a teammate) can pick up exactly where this one stopped.

Phase 1: Analyze Changes

Pull the full diff against main and read it carefully — you cannot test what you don't understand.

git diff --name-only main...HEAD     # what changed
git diff main...HEAD                 # how it changed

Build a mental model of every change: new features, modified behavior, new routes/views/components, touched data flows. Note anything that produces user-visible behavior — that is what the matrix must cover.

Ground in the product's personas and vision. Look for persona and vision context so flows can be judged from real users' eyes, not just "does it work." Check, in order: STRATEGY.md (its "Who it's for" section names the primary persona and their job-to-be-done), VISION.md, and any persona docs (e.g. docs/personas/, PERSONAS.md). Capture the 1-3 primary personas and what each cares about. If none exist, infer a reasonable primary persona from the product and the diff, and say so in the report.

Phase 2: Map the Flows, Then Build the Matrix

The quality of the whole dogfood depends on this phase. Do not jump straight to a flat list of pages. First understand the user flows the diff touches, then derive the matrix from them. A matrix built without a flow model tests pages in isolation and misses the journey — the email that "sends" but lands in the wrong thread.

2a. Map the user flows (required)

For every user-visible change, trace the complete journey end to end and draw it. Map each flow as a Mermaid flowchart so the journey is explicit and reviewable before any testing happens — entry point, each user action, branch points (success / validation error / empty / permission-denied), side effects (emails, jobs, notifications), and the true end state.

Email example: it's not enough that "an email sends." Does it go to the right recipient? When the user clicks through, does the app land on and scroll to the right message? Does the content make sense? Does the whole flow align with the product's vision and UX? The flowchart must carry the click-through and its destination, not stop at "email sent."

flowchart TD
    A[User opens /threads] --> B[Clicks 'Reply']
    B --> C{Form valid?}
    C -->|No| D[Inline validation error shown]
    C -->|Yes| E[Reply saved]
    E --> F[Notification email sent to thread participants]
    E --> G[UI scrolls to new reply, focus on it]
    F --> H[Recipient clicks email link]
    H --> I{Lands on correct thread + scrolls to the reply?}

Produce one flowchart per distinct journey. Cover the happy path and the branch points (error, empty, boundary, permission). These diagrams ARE the understanding — they become the spine of the matrix and belong in the final report.

2b. Derive the matrix from the flows

Walk each flowchart and turn every node and branch into one or more test scenarios. Read references/test-matrix-taxonomy.md for the full set of dimensions (journeys, functional checks, experiential checks, edge/error/empty states, accessibility, responsiveness). Cover both functional ("does it work?") and experiential ("does it feel right and align with the product?").

Map changed files to concrete routes (views -> their pages, components -> pages rendering them, layouts -> all pages, stylesheets -> visual regression on key pages) and attach those routes to the flows that exercise them.

Load the matrix as a task list (TaskCreate), one task per scenario, so progress is tracked and nothing is skipped. Order tasks by flow, following the flowcharts, not by file.

Phase 3: Detect Port and Start the Dev Server

Determine the port (priority: explicit --port > AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md > package.json dev script > .env* PORT= > default 3000). If a server is already listening, reuse it; otherwise start the project's dev command in the background and wait for the port to come up. This is the same mechanism ce-test-browser uses — follow its Phase 5–6 logic.

agent-browser open "http://localhost:${PORT}"
agent-browser snapshot -i

Phase 4: Execute the Matrix

Work the task list one item at a time. For each scenario, mark the task in_progress, then:

1. Document what you're testing (the journey and the expected outcome).

2. Drive it with agent-browser — navigate, snapshot for interactive refs, click, fill, submit, follow the journey to its real end state:

   agent-browser open "http://localhost:${PORT}/<route>"
   agent-browser snapshot -i
   agent-browser click @e1
   agent-browser fill @e2 "value"
   agent-browser screenshot <scenario>.png
   agent-browser errors      # check console/page errors
   

3. Judge both correctness and experience: right data, right destination, sensible content, no console errors, and does it feel aligned with the product?

4. Walk it as each persona. Re-run the journey in your head from each primary persona's perspective (from Phase 1) and ask where they'd feel a paper cut — a small friction that wouldn't fail a functional test but degrades the experience: a confusing label, an extra click, an unexpected jump, a slow-feeling step, missing feedback, copy that doesn't match how that persona thinks. A scenario can be functionally Pass yet still carry paper cuts. Note each paper cut, which persona feels it, and its severity.

5. Record pass/fail plus any paper cuts, with specifics. Mark the task completed only when it genuinely passes (paper cuts are logged, not blockers — fix the sharp ones in Phase 5, surface the rest in the report).

External-interaction flows (OAuth, real email delivery, payments, SMS) can't be fully driven headlessly — pause and ask the user to verify that leg, then continue.

Phase 5: Fix Loop (Autonomous)

When a scenario fails, fix it and prove it — but first decide whether the fix is yours to make autonomously or a human's to decide.

Judge the size of the fix before touching code. Auto-fix when the change is small, well-understood, and low-risk: a clear bug with an obvious correct fix, contained to a few files, no schema/architecture/product trade-off. Do not auto-fix when the change is large or ambiguous — it requires an architectural or schema decision, changes product behavior or UX intent, spans many files, has plausible competing solutions, or you're not confident the "right" answer is unambiguous. Forcing a big judgment call autonomously is worse than escalating it.

For autonomous fixes:

1. Investigate the root cause. If it's non-obvious, use ce-debug.
2. Apply the fix in the code.
3. Add an automated regression test that fails before the fix and passes after, so the bug can't return.
4. Commit the fix with a clear message (use ce-commit). One logical fix per commit.
5. Re-run the failing scenario in the browser to confirm it now passes; then continue the matrix.
6. If the bug carried a reusable lesson, capture it with ce-compound.

For changes too big to make autonomously: do not implement. Record it in the report's Decisions for a human section with: what's broken, why it's not a safe autonomous fix, the options you see (with trade-offs), and your recommendation. Mark the scenario Blocked (human decision) in the matrix, then continue with the rest. Never make a large, irreversible, or product-altering change just to clear a matrix item.

Keep iterating until every task is completed or explicitly Blocked (human decision). Re-test anything a fix might have affected (watch for regressions in adjacent journeys).

Phase 6: Write the Report Artifact

The report doc was created at the end of Phase 2 and updated incrementally throughout (see Resumability). When the matrix is green (or every remaining item is explicitly blocked), finalize it at docs/dogfood-reports/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<branch-slug>-dogfood.md in the repo under test, then surface a short summary in chat with the file path.

Use references/dogfood-report-template.md as the shape — the same way plans and brainstorms are captured from a template. The finalized artifact must include:

1. Diff Summary — what changed between the branch and main.
2. Personas — the primary personas evaluated against (and their source: STRATEGY.md / VISION.md / inferred).
3. Flows tested — the Mermaid flowcharts from Phase 2a, so the journeys are preserved.
4. Test Matrix & Results — every scenario: what was tested, pass/fail, issue found, fix applied, commit SHA.
5. What was fixed — each bug, its root cause, the fix, the regression test added, and the commit.
6. Paper cuts (by persona) — experiential friction found, which persona feels each, severity, and whether fixed or deferred.
7. Decisions for a human — issues too big to fix autonomously: what's broken, why it was escalated, options with trade-offs, and a recommendation.
8. Learnings — reusable lessons worth carrying forward (feed substantial ones to ce-compound).
9. Final Status — readiness verdict, plus anything still blocked or needing human verification.

Use repo-relative paths in the doc, never absolute paths, so it stays portable.