bug-fix（错误修复）

Bug Fix Skill

Diagnose a concrete bug, choose the safest repair path, and fix it — classify complexity first, then either fix directly or track progress through structured phases.

<request_routing>

Positive triggers

• A specific runtime error with a reproduction path, such as Cannot read properties of undefined.
• A specific logic bug such as duplicate rendering, stale state, or wrong calculations in one feature.
• A concrete API bug with a failing request, response mismatch, or one broken integration path.

Out-of-scope

• Repository-wide build or CI cleanup. Route that to build-fix.
• Security audits, exploit review, or trust-boundary analysis. Route that to security-review.
• New feature work, refactors, or speculative cleanup that are not tied to a concrete bug.

Boundary cases

• If the user asks for root-cause analysis only, stay in diagnosis mode and do not edit.
• If the user asks for a direct fix on a single concrete bug, this skill owns it.
• If the request starts as a bug but expands into repo-wide build breakage, hand off to build-fix.

</request_routing>

<argument_validation>

If ARGUMENT is missing, ask immediately:

Which bug should be fixed?
- Error message / failing symptom
- Expected vs actual behavior
- Reproduction steps
- Related files or call sites
- Recent change, suspect commit, or environment detail

</argument_validation>

<mandatory_reasoning>

Mandatory Sequential Thinking

Always run sequential-thinking before implementation. Depth scales with complexity:

• Simple (3 thoughts): Identify cause → determine fix → verify approach
• Medium (5 thoughts): Classify → reproduce → hypothesize → compare options → recommend
• Complex (7+ thoughts): Classify → reproduce → hypothesize multiple causes → explore dependencies → compare options → assess cross-cutting impact → recommend

Recommended sequence:

1. Complexity classification
2. Reproduction and symptom framing
3. Root-cause hypotheses
4. Option comparison
5. Final recommendation

Before any edit, collect root-cause evidence and reduce the problem to a minimal reproduction or the narrowest failing boundary you can actually verify.

</mandatory_reasoning>

<complexity_classification>

Complexity Classification

Classify immediately after sequential-thinking:

Announce the classification:

Complexity: [simple/complex] — [one-line reason]

When uncertain, classify as complex. It is cheaper to track than to lose investigation progress.

</complexity_classification>

<flow_tracking>

Flow Tracking (Complex Path Only)

When classified as complex, initialize the flow:

mkdir -p .hypercore/bug-fix

Write .hypercore/bug-fix/flow.json and update it as each phase progresses. See references/flow-schema.md for the full schema.

Phase progression

Resume support

If .hypercore/bug-fix/flow.json already exists, read it first and continue from the last incomplete phase (in_progress or pending). Do not restart completed phases.

</flow_tracking>

<execution_modes>

Use one of these branches explicitly:

• Diagnose-only: reproduce, isolate the failing path, summarize evidence, and stop before code edits.
• Fix-now (simple path): If the user explicitly asks for a direct fix and one path is clearly the safest, say which path you are taking and implement without a second confirmation round. No flow tracking.
• Option-first (complex path): present 2-3 repair options with flow tracking and wait for user selection.
• Handoff: route repo-wide build breakage to build-fix and security review requests to security-review.

</execution_modes>

Simple Path (Fix-now)

Complex Path (Option-first)

<option_presentation>

Use this format (complex path):

## Bug Analysis Result
**Root cause**: ...
**Impact scope**: ...
**Complexity**: complex

### Option 1: ... (Recommended)
- **Pros**:
- **Cons**:
- **Risk**:
- **Files**:

### Option 2: ...
- **Pros**:
- **Cons**:
- **Risk**:
- **Files**:

### Option 3: ... (Temporary)
- **Pros**:
- **Cons**:
- **Risk**:
- **Files**:

Recommendation: Option N (reason ...)
Which option should I apply? (1/2/3)

</option_presentation>

<implementation_rules>

• Do not modify code before user option selection unless in the explicit Fix-now branch.
• Avoid speculative edits; use evidence-based fixes only.
• Keep scope limited to the requested bug and direct impact.
• Always run targeted validation for the changed path, not just a generic command dump.
• Report the commands run, the key result lines, and the touched files in the final report.
• If validation cannot run, say why and what remains unverified.

Reporting

After execution, report:

## Done

**Bug**: [original symptom]
**Root cause**: [what was wrong]
**Fix applied**: [which option or approach]
**Changes**: [list of changed files]
**Validation**: [what was verified and result]

For complex path: also update .hypercore/bug-fix/flow.json status to completed.

</implementation_rules>

Execution checklist:

• ARGUMENT validated
• sequential-thinking completed (depth matches complexity)
• Complexity classified (simple/complex)
• Flow JSON created and maintained (complex path only)
• Root-cause evidence collected
• 2-3 options presented (complex path) or fix path announced (simple path)
• User choice confirmed (complex path)
• typecheck/test/build executed
• outcome + touched files reported
• Flow JSON finalized with completed status (complex path only)

Forbidden:

• speculative fix without evidence
• immediate implementation without options (complex path)
• implementation without explicit user choice (complex path)
• completion claim without validation
• skipping flow JSON updates in complex path