Bug Report Verify

Bug report validity verification

Your task is NOT to check formatting, but to adversarially verify the problem itself. Assume that the report may be an agent's hallucination or a false conclusion drawn from incomplete context. Your goal is to try to DISPROVE the report, and only if you cannot disprove it — confirm it.

Input

$ARGUMENTS — path to the bug report file or the report text itself.

• If the argument looks like a path (docs/bugs/**, *.md, *.txt) — read the file.
• If it is the report text pasted directly into the message — use it as is.
• If the argument is empty — take the bug report from the user's last message in the conversation; if it is not there either, ask which report to check (do not invent one).

How to proceed

1. Extract the claims. Break the report down into atomic factual claims:

   • what exactly reproduces (steps, input data, environment);
   • what behavior is observed (actual);
   • what behavior is expected (expected) and WHAT that expectation is based on (spec, documentation, code, the report author's common sense?);
   • what cause/localization is asserted (if any).

2. Check each claim independently, against primary sources:

   • find the actual implementation of the described behavior in the code — read the code, not the retelling in the report; the mentioned files/functions/endpoints/configs must exist and do what is claimed;
   • verify that the "expected behavior" is actually expected: is there a requirement/spec/contract, or did the report author make it up;
   • check whether the behavior is intentional (a feature, a known limitation, a deliberate trade-off — look for comments, ADRs, git log/blame, existing tickets and docs);
   • check whether the report is stale: maybe the problem has already been fixed in the current branch.

3. Reproduce the problem. If possible in the current environment — execute the reproduction steps (run the code, test, request, script) and record the actual result. If it cannot be reproduced directly — write a minimal test/script that isolates the claimed behavior, and run it. If reproduction is impossible in principle (requires prod, an external service, specific data) — say so explicitly and assess the problem from the code only, marking the conclusion as indirect.

4. Check the conclusions, not just the facts. Even if the observed behavior is real, the asserted cause may be wrong. Separately assess: observation (symptom) vs interpretation (diagnosis) — they are confirmed independently.

Verdict

Give one of the verdicts with justification:

• CONFIRMED — the problem was reproduced / unambiguously proven by the code. Attach evidence: reproduction output, code references (file:line).
• PARTIALLY CONFIRMED — the symptom is real, but the cause/scope/expected behavior in the report are described incorrectly. State exactly what to correct.
• NOT CONFIRMED — the problem does not reproduce or the report is based on a false premise. Explain where the false conclusion came from (what context the report author overlooked).
• INSUFFICIENT DATA — list the specific questions/data without which verification is impossible (environment, version, input data, access).

Requirements for the response

• Every conclusion — only with a reference to evidence: code (file:line), command output, test result. Claims without evidence are forbidden.
• If your confidence is not 100% — explicitly state the degree of confidence and what remains unverified.
• Do NOT fix the bug and do not change the code (except temporary tests/scripts for reproduction — delete them after checking). File editing tools are intentionally unavailable to this skill — this is a read-only audit.
• If the report is partially incorrect — formulate the clarifications/edits to the report that would make it correct.