agentleFS
Sign inStart free
mejbaurbaharmejbaurbahar/fagun/skills/bug-reporting/SKILL.md

bug-reporting

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use whenever filing a defect found during any kind of testing — applies the harness's standard severity scale, report template, and evidence requirements so reports are consistent and actionable.

4 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Never declare a defect (or a passing test) based on assumption:

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify HTTP status codes, not just "the page looked wrong."

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Verify actual DOM/element state, not a screenshot glance.

    line 13
  4. Distinctive:

    Verify database mutations or backend state for anything claiming data was/wasn't persisted.

    line 14
  5. Distinctive:

    Never include a full working exploit chain for security findings beyond what's needed to reproduce internally — keep destructive PoCs out …

    line 61

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Bug Reporting

This is the shared reporting spine for every testing skill in this harness — [[manual-testing]], [[functional-testing]], [[api-testing]], [[security-testing]], [[performance-testing]], [[accessibility-testing]], [[mobile-testing]], [[regression-testing]] all file through this format. Canonical source: ~/qa-agent/QA_RULES.md.

Verification standard before filing

Never declare a defect (or a passing test) based on assumption:

  • Verify HTTP status codes, not just "the page looked wrong."
  • Verify actual DOM/element state, not a screenshot glance.
  • Verify database mutations or backend state for anything claiming data was/wasn't persisted.
  • Capture console errors and network request/response evidence, not just a description.
  • In browser testing, wait for network-idle or selector-availability before asserting — a false failure from a race condition wastes everyone's time.

Severity scale

  • Blocker (Sev 1): system crash, core transaction impossible, data loss, catastrophic resource leak.
  • Critical (Sev 2): core functionality severely impaired, no acceptable workaround (auth broken, checkout broken, cross-tenant data leak).
  • Major (Sev 3): non-critical feature failure, or a high-frequency edge case with a workaround.
  • Minor (Sev 4): cosmetic, copy error, low-impact UX annoyance.

Severity is about real-world impact and exploitability/frequency — not how the bug was found. A cosmetic misalignment stays Minor even if found during a security audit; an unauthenticated data leak is Critical/Blocker even if it looks like "just a UI thing" at first glance.

Report template

# [BUG] [Component] Title of the Issue

- **Severity**: Blocker | Critical | Major | Minor
- **Priority**: P0 | P1 | P2 | P3
- **Environment**: Staging / Production / Local (Browser/OS/device version)
- **URL / Endpoint**: https://...

### Preconditions
- User logged in as admin / test account, feature flag state, etc.

### Reproduction Steps
1. Navigate to ...
2. Click on ...
3. Input ...

### Expected Result
...

### Actual Result
...

### Diagnostics & Evidence
- **Console Errors**: `TypeError: ...`
- **Network Request**: `POST /api/v1/...` -> Status `500 Internal Server Error`
- **Screenshot**: `~/qa-agent/reports/screenshots/...`

### Impact & Root Cause Analysis
...

Filing mechanics in this harness

  • Save reports under ~/qa-agent/reports/.
  • qa report surfaces/aggregates filed reports through the CLI dispatcher.
  • Never include a full working exploit chain for security findings beyond what's needed to reproduce internally — keep destructive PoCs out of shared reports.
  • Redact real user PII/credentials from evidence (screenshots, logs) before saving/sharing a report, even on internal staging environments.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free