Wtf.report Bug

Report Bug

File a structured Bug issue from a QA finding. The failed Gherkin scenario becomes the reproducible test evidence. The originating Task and Feature are linked so context is kept.

Fast path (for wtf.hotfix)

When invoked from wtf.hotfix, skip the Gherkin-derivation and Ubiquitous-Language mapping work. The goal is to file the issue fast so the fix can start. Run only:

• Step 0 — GitHub CLI setup (skip if already confirmed this session).
• Step 1 — Identify the source (one-sentence bug, impact, optional task link).
• Step 3 — Gather bug details, but only a. Observed behavior, b. Expected behavior, and c. Reproduction steps. Skip contract violation / regression risk / suggested fix questions. The hotfix will uncover those.
• Step 6 — Draft the Bug report with only the sections the fast path produced (leave Contracts Violated, Regression Risk, Suggested Fix blank or marked "Fast path — to be captured during hotfix").
• Step 7 — Review briefly (or skip if the caller signaled non-interactive).
• Step 8 — Create the issue.

Return the bug issue number to the caller. Do not run the offer-next-steps prompt in step 9.

Process

0. GitHub CLI setup

Run steps 1–2 of ../references/gh-setup.md (install check and auth check). Stop if gh is not installed or not authenticated. Extensions are not required for this skill.

If invoked from wtf.verify-task or another skill that already ran gh-setup this session, skip this step.

1. Identify the source

If called from wtf.verify-task: the task number and failing scenario(s) are already in context — skip to step 2. Do not ask the questions below.

If invoked directly:

Ask in a single message:

• "What is the bug? (one sentence)"
• "Which Task does this trace back to? (issue number, or 'unknown')"

If a task number is known, walk Task → Feature per ../references/spec-hierarchy.md. Extract Gherkin, Contracts, ACs, and DoD from the Task. Extract ACs and user stories from the Feature for expected-behavior context.

2. Identify the failing scenario(s)

If the Task has Gherkin, present the full scenario list and call AskUserQuestion (per ../references/questioning-style.md):

• question: "Which scenarios failed?"
• header: "Failing scenarios"
• options:
  • One option per scenario name from the Task
  • New — not covered by existing scenarios — this bug is not covered by the current Gherkin

For each failing scenario, note:

• The scenario name
• The file path of the automated test (if it exists) or "manual"
• The failing step (the first Then / When that did not hold)

If no Gherkin exists for this bug, skip this step and rely on step 3.

3. Gather bug details

If called from wtf.verify-task and all six details below are already in context, skip this step entirely.

Otherwise, for each unknown item below (omitting any already known), call AskUserQuestion (per ../references/questioning-style.md):

• a. Observed behavior — question: "What was the exact behavior you observed?" / header: "Actual behavior" / options: from plausible failure descriptions inferred from the scenario context.
• b. Expected behavior — question: "What did you expect to happen instead?" / header: "Expected behavior" / options: from the relevant Gherkin Then step or AC text if available.
• c. Reproduction steps — question: "What are the reproduction steps?" / header: "Repro steps" / options: I'll type them out — enter numbered steps.
• d. Contract violation — question: "Is any contract violated?" / header: "Contract" / options: candidates from contract names in the Task. None identified.
• e. Regression risk — question: "What else might break if we fix this?" / header: "Regression risk" / options: from adjacent areas found in the codebase or related Aggregates.
• f. Suggested fix — question: "Do you have a suggested fix in mind?" / header: "Suggested fix" / options: No suggestion — leave blank.

4. Map to Ubiquitous Language

Review the bug description and reproduction steps. If implementation vocabulary has crept in (e.g. "the database returned null", "the HTTP 500 response", "the JSON field"), restate in domain terms that match the Task's Ubiquitous Language (e.g. "the Order could not be found", "the Payment Settlement failed", "the Shipment Reference was missing").

Confirm the restatement with the user before proceeding.

When called from wtf.verify-task with multiple failures to file: apply the restatement silently — do NOT ask for confirmation. Note the language changes made in the draft instead of asking the user to approve them. This prevents an interrogation when processing multiple bugs in sequence.

5. Find linked test files

Use the Grep tool to locate:

• Automated test files that cover the failing Gherkin scenario (search by scenario name or feature area)
• Any existing test for the contract section violated

List each file found with a one-line description of what it covers. These become the Test Evidence in the bug report.

6. Draft the Bug report

Apply strict STE per ../references/ste-writing.md before writing any durable body.

Load the BUG template per ../references/issue-template-loading.md (verify existence, halt-or-setup if missing, read body below the second --- delimiter). Fill all sections:

Related

• Feature: #<feature_number> (if known)
• Task: #<task_number> (if known)
• Failing test(s): list each file path (or "manual" with reproduction steps)

Expected Behavior Quote the relevant Gherkin Then step or Feature AC verbatim. Then add a plain-language restatement.

Actual Behavior Describe in domain terms what happened instead. Include any observable symptom (error message, wrong state, missing event).

Steps to Reproduce Concrete numbered steps — exact inputs, routes, or actions. If from a Gherkin scenario, map Given → setup, When → action, Then → the failing assertion.

Contracts Violated Paste the relevant contract section from the Task (API schema, event schema, invariant). If none, write "None identified."

Suggested Fix Fill if the QA engineer or developer has a hypothesis. Otherwise leave blank.

Regression Risk List other behaviors, Aggregates, or integration points that touch the same code path and could be affected by a fix.

7. Review with user

Show the draft. Then call AskUserQuestion (per ../references/questioning-style.md):

• question: "Does this accurately capture the bug and its impact?"
• header: "Review"
• options:
  • Yes — create the issue → proceed with bug creation
  • I have changes → adjust first

Apply edits. Then proceed.

8. Create the issue

Note: the commands below are pseudo-code. Write each body to a temp file with the Write tool. Then create it through the gh body helper (.wtf/gh-body.py) so multi-line UTF-8 content survives on Windows. See ../references/gh-body-helper.md.

Title generation: Spawn a subagent using the claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 model to generate a concise title from the bug's one-sentence description. Pass in the description and ask for a short title (no prefix emoji/label needed — that is added below). If the subagent returns nothing usable, derive the title directly from the one-sentence description.

# Write the filled bug body to a temp file with the Write tool; $BUG_TMP is that path.
# Create the issue WITHOUT a kind label — the classify step below sets the kind.
python3 .wtf/gh-body.py create --title "🐞 Bug: <title>" --body-file "$BUG_TMP"

Classify the issue as Bug. Set TYPE="Bug" and ISSUE_NUMBER=<number from the URL>. Then run the Classify a new issue block from ../references/issue-classification.md (resolve $WTF_CLASS once first). In types mode it sets the native GitHub issue type and leaves labels free for your own segmentation. In labels mode it applies the bug label.

If the originating Task is known, write this comment to a temp file with the Write tool, then post it linking the bug:

🐞 Bug reported: # —

# $COMMENT is the temp file you wrote the comment above to.
python3 .wtf/gh-body.py comment <task_number> --body-file "$COMMENT"

Print the Bug issue URL and number.

rm "$BUG_TMP"

9. Offer next steps

Call AskUserQuestion (per ../references/questioning-style.md):

• question: "What's next?"

• header: "Next step"

• options:

  • Report another bug → file another bug from this QA session (default if more failures remain)
  • Mark Task blocked → reopen the Task and mark it blocked by this bug
  • Done → exit, no further action (default if no more failures remain)

• Report another bug → restart from step 2 with the same Task context. Use as default only when the caller (e.g. wtf.verify-task step 8) has indicated more failures are pending.

• Mark Task blocked → reopen the Task and add a blocking comment:

  gh issue reopen <task_number>
  # Write "Blocked by #<bug_number>." to a temp file with the Write tool ($COMMENT), then:
  python3 .wtf/gh-body.py comment <task_number> --body-file "$COMMENT"
  

• Done (default when no more failures remain) → exit.