1.6 KiB
1.6 KiB
| name | description | roles |
|---|---|---|
| Bug Fix | Minimal workflow for a well-understood, self-contained bug fix | developer, reviewer, tester |
Use this workflow for bugs where the cause is already known and the fix is straightforward. No research, no deployment step.
Decomposition
| # | Title | Role | Depends On |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fix: | developer | — |
| 2 | Review: | reviewer | 1 |
| 3 | Verify fix: | tester | 2 |
Handoffs
1 → 2 (developer → reviewer) Conductor includes in REVIEW_REQUEST:
- Files modified
- Description of the fix and root cause
- Any edge cases or areas of concern
2 rejected → 1 (reviewer → developer) Conductor includes in PROMPT_REQUEST:
- Reviewer findings
- Files and locations requiring changes
2 → 3 (reviewer approved → tester) Conductor includes in APPROVAL_REQUEST:
- Files modified
- Description of the bug and expected correct behavior
- Reviewer findings and resolution summary
3 failed → 1 (tester → developer) Conductor includes in PROMPT_REQUEST:
- Test failures and reproduction steps
- Files under test
Notes
- The tester's job here is specifically to verify the bug is fixed, not exhaustive regression testing.
- After rework, the full review and test cycle repeats from step 2.
- If the fix turns out to be non-trivial during implementation, escalate to
the
featureworkflow. - If any required role is not present in the session, block and report to the user.