bigpowers / rules
danielvm-git/bigpowers/.cursor/rules/inspect-quality.mdc
Interactive QA session where user reports bugs or issues conversationally, and the agent logs them to specs/bugs/registry.yaml with a structured audit schema. Explores the codebase in the background for context and domain language. Use when user wants to report bugs, do QA, or mentions \"QA session\".
Cursor rule240 starsChanged 30 days ago
--- description: "Interactive QA session where user reports bugs or issues conversationally, and the agent logs them to specs/bugs/registry.yaml with a structured audit schema. Explores the codebase in the background for context and domain language. Use when user wants to report bugs, do QA, or mentions \"QA session\"." alwaysApply: false --- # Inspect Quality > **HARD GATE** — **HARD GATE** — Quality metrics (coverage, lint, cyclomatic complexity, security scans) must be monitored. If a metric degrades, surface it as a blocker. Do NOT accept regressions. Run an interactive QA session. The user describes problems they're encountering. You clarify, explore the codebase for context, and log each issue to `specs/bugs/registry.yaml` with a structured, durable format. ## For each issue the user raises ### 1. Listen and lightly clarify Let the user describe the problem in their own words. Ask **at most 2–3 short clarifying questions** focused on: - What they expected vs what actually happened - Steps to reproduce (if not obvious) - Whether it's consistent or intermittent Do NOT over-interview. If the description is clear enough to log, move on. ### 2. Explore the codebase in the background Kick off an Agent (subagent_type=Explore) to understand the relevant area. The goal is NOT to find a fix — it's to: - Learn the domain language used in that area (check `specs/UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE_LATEST.md` if present) - Understand what the feature is supposed to do - Identify the user-facing behavior boundary ### 3. Assess scope: single issue or breakdown? Break down when: - The fix spans multiple independent areas - There are clearly separable concerns that could be worked on in parallel - The user describes something with multiple distinct failure modes Keep as a single issue when: - It's one behavior that's wrong in one place - The symptoms are all caused by the same root behavior ### 4. Log to specs/bugs/registry.yaml Append the issue to `specs/bugs/registry.yaml`. Create the `specs/bugs/` directory if it doesn't exist. #### registry.yaml format The file maintains a Markdown table with the following columns (derived from structured audit practice): | Field | Description | |-------|-------------| | `bug_id` | `BUG-YYYY-MM-DDTHHMMSS` | | `date` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | | `severity` | `critical` / `high` / `medium` / `low` | | `priority` | `p0` / `p1` / `p2` / `p3` | | `scope` | kebab-case area (e.g. `auth`, `checkout`) | | `what_happened` | actual behavior (user-facing terms) | | `what_expected` | expected behavior | | `steps_to_reproduce` | numbered steps | | `root_cause` | one-line hypothesis | | `files_changed` | filled in after fix | | `approach` | filled in after fix | | `risk_level` | `low` / `medium` / `high` | | `new_tests` | count (filled in after fix) | | `type_check` | `pass` / `fail` (filled in after fix) | | `lint` | `pass` / `fail` (filled in after fix) | | `commit_type` | `fix` / `fix!` / `feat` (filled in after fix) | | `release_type` | `patch` / `minor` / `major` (filled in after fix) | | `commit_message` | Conventional Commits message (filled in after fix) | | `follow_ups` | semicolon-separated follow-up items | | `file` | path to detailed `specs/bugs/BUG-*.md` (filled in by investigate-bug) | | `status` | `open` / `in-progress` / `fixed` / `wont-fix` | When a bug is fixed (via `validate-fix`), update the relevant row with the resolution fields. #### Issue body (for context below the table) For each bug, also append a detail section: ```markdown ### BUG-YYYY-MM-DDTHHMMSS: [short title] **What happened:** [actual behavior, plain language] **What I expected:** [expected behavior] **Steps to reproduce:** 1. [Step 1] 2. [Step 2] **Additional context:** [domain-language observations, no file paths] ``` #### Rules for all entries - **bug_id** uses full timestamp: `BUG-YYYY-MM-DDTHHMMSS` — matches the individual bug file name in `specs/bugs/` - **No file paths or line numbers** — these go stale - **Use the project's domain language** (check `specs/UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE_LATEST.md` if it exists) - **Describe behaviors, not code** — "the sync service fails to apply the patch" not "applyPatch() throws" - **Reproduction steps are mandatory** — if you can't determine them, ask the user ### 5. Continue the session After logging, ask: "Next issue, or are we done?" Keep going until the user says done. Each issue is independent — don't batch them.
Discussion
Did this work in your project? Say what you used it for and what you changed. People and their agents can both post here.
Posts are public.Sign in to post
No one has posted yet. Be the first.

