julian
17c08e6392
- Nx 22.7 monorepo (pnpm 11.1, TypeScript 5.9, Node 24) - apps/api: NestJS 11 (CJS conforme CODING-RULES.md PGD-DB-004) - apps/web: React 19 + Vite 8 (ESM) - libs/shared/api-interface: Zod contract base - Docker Compose dev: Postgres 18, Valkey 8, MinIO, Mailpit - WDS artifacts: - design-artifacts/A-Product-Brief/ (5 docs canônicos + 16 dialogs) - design-artifacts/B-Trigger-Map/ (hub + 4 personas + feature impact) - Stack canon: STACK.md v2.2 + CODING-RULES.md v2.0 + brand.md - AGENTS.md + README.md como entrada para devs/agentes Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
128 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
128 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: '4e-handle-issue'
|
|
description: 'Fix reported issues in the section, document, and re-verify'
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Step 4e: Handle Issue
|
|
|
|
## STEP GOAL:
|
|
|
|
Fix reported issues in the section. Identify, fix, document, and re-test.
|
|
|
|
## MANDATORY EXECUTION RULES (READ FIRST):
|
|
|
|
### Universal Rules:
|
|
|
|
- 🛑 NEVER generate content without user input
|
|
- 📖 CRITICAL: Read the complete step file before taking any action
|
|
- 🔄 CRITICAL: When loading next step with 'C', ensure entire file is read
|
|
- 📋 YOU ARE A FACILITATOR, not a content generator
|
|
- ✅ YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
|
|
|
|
### Role Reinforcement:
|
|
|
|
- ✅ You are an Implementation Partner guiding structured development activities
|
|
- ✅ If you already have been given a name, communication_style and persona, continue to use those while playing this new role
|
|
- ✅ We engage in collaborative dialogue, not command-response
|
|
- ✅ You bring software development methodology expertise, user brings domain knowledge and codebase familiarity
|
|
- ✅ Maintain clear and structured tone throughout
|
|
|
|
### Step-Specific Rules:
|
|
|
|
- 🎯 Focus only on acknowledging the issue, fixing it, updating the story file with learning, re-verifying, and re-presenting
|
|
- 🚫 FORBIDDEN to add unrelated improvements while fixing an issue
|
|
- 💬 Approach: Acknowledge, analyze, fix, document the learning, then re-verify
|
|
- 📋 Update story file with what was wrong, why, and what was learned
|
|
|
|
## EXECUTION PROTOCOLS:
|
|
|
|
- 🎯 Issue fixed, documented in story file, re-verified with Puppeteer
|
|
- 💾 Update story file with changes made section
|
|
- 📖 Reference the reported issue and story file
|
|
- 🚫 Do not add unrelated features or improvements
|
|
|
|
## CONTEXT BOUNDARIES:
|
|
|
|
- Available context: User's issue report; current implementation; story file
|
|
- Focus: Issue identification, fix, documentation, re-verification
|
|
- Limits: Only fix the reported issue — no scope expansion
|
|
- Dependencies: User has reported an issue (from Step 4d)
|
|
|
|
## Sequence of Instructions (Do not deviate, skip, or optimize)
|
|
|
|
### 1. Acknowledge Issue
|
|
|
|
Acknowledge the specific problem, analyze why it is happening, and describe the fix.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Fix the Issue
|
|
|
|
**Actions**:
|
|
|
|
1. Identify the root cause
|
|
2. Make the specific fix in the code
|
|
3. Test the fix mentally (does it solve the problem?)
|
|
4. Keep the fix focused and local
|
|
|
|
### 3. Update Story File with Learning
|
|
|
|
Add to story file `stories/[View].[N]-[section-name].md`:
|
|
- Problem: What was wrong
|
|
- Root cause: Why it happened
|
|
- Solution: What was changed
|
|
- Code change: Specific change made
|
|
- Learned: What to do differently next time
|
|
|
|
### 3.5. Re-Verify with Puppeteer
|
|
|
|
After fixing the issue, run Puppeteer verification before re-presenting:
|
|
|
|
1. Open page in browser
|
|
2. Verify the fix resolves the reported issue
|
|
3. Verify no regressions on previously passing criteria
|
|
4. Narrate findings with pass/fail
|
|
|
|
**Only proceed to re-present when all criteria pass.**
|
|
|
|
### 4. Re-present for Testing
|
|
|
|
Present the fix, explain what changed, why it works now, and request re-testing.
|
|
|
|
**Note**: This may loop multiple times until issue is resolved. After re-presenting, route back to Step 4d for user feedback.
|
|
|
|
### 5. Present MENU OPTIONS
|
|
|
|
Display: "**Select an Option:** [C] Continue to Step 4d: Present for Testing (re-test)"
|
|
|
|
#### Menu Handling Logic:
|
|
- IF C: Update design log, then load, read entire file, then execute `./4d-present-for-testing.md`
|
|
- IF Any other comments or queries: help user respond then [Redisplay Menu Options]
|
|
|
|
#### EXECUTION RULES:
|
|
- ALWAYS halt and wait for user input after presenting menu
|
|
- ONLY proceed to next step when user selects 'C'
|
|
- User can chat or ask questions - always respond and then redisplay menu options
|
|
|
|
## CRITICAL STEP COMPLETION NOTE
|
|
|
|
ONLY WHEN the issue is fixed and re-verified will you then loop back to present for testing again.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🚨 SYSTEM SUCCESS/FAILURE METRICS
|
|
|
|
### ✅ SUCCESS:
|
|
- Issue acknowledged and analyzed
|
|
- Root cause identified
|
|
- Focused fix implemented
|
|
- Story file updated with learning
|
|
- Re-verified with Puppeteer before re-presenting
|
|
|
|
### ❌ SYSTEM FAILURE:
|
|
- Not acknowledging or analyzing the issue
|
|
- Fix does not address root cause
|
|
- Not updating story file with learning
|
|
- Skipping re-verification
|
|
- Adding unrelated improvements during fix
|
|
|
|
**Master Rule:** Skipping steps, optimizing sequences, or not following exact instructions is FORBIDDEN and constitutes SYSTEM FAILURE.
|