Fix Report — Skill

Purpose

Defines the structure, conventions, and quality standards for diagnosing validation failures and producing a FIX_REPORT.md within the agentic spec-driven development workflow.

When to Use

Load this skill whenever an agent needs to diagnose validation failures and produce a fix plan or fix report. Primary user: Phase 5 (Fix). Secondary user: any agent reviewing fix outcomes.

Conventions

Diagnosis Standards

1. •Read all failures before fixing any. Multiple scenario failures may share one root cause. Fixing in isolation risks duplicate effort or conflicting patches.
2. •Trace to origin. Every failure must be traced: failed scenario → violated requirement → responsible component → specific function/line. If you can't point to a line, you haven't diagnosed it.
3. •Classify every failure. Use exactly these root cause categories:
   • •code-bug: Logic error, wrong algorithm, incorrect data transformation
   • •data-issue: Wrong test data, missing sample files, incorrect fixture setup
   • •setup-issue: Missing dependency, wrong version, broken install step
   • •spec-ambiguity: Spec language allows multiple interpretations
   • •design-gap: Design didn't account for this case or scenario
   • •validation-error: The test script itself has a bug (wrong expected value, wrong comparison method)
4. •Group by root cause. One root cause may manifest as multiple scenario failures. The fix plan addresses root causes, not individual scenarios.

Fix Plan Standards

1. •Plan before executing. The fix plan is a separate deliverable presented to the user before any code changes are made.
2. •Each fix item includes:
   • •Root cause ID (RC-001, RC-002, ...)
   • •Classification (from the categories above)
   • •Affected scenarios (which ones fail because of this)
   • •Affected requirements (which REQs are impacted)
   • •Diagnosis (what's wrong and why)
   • •Proposed fix (what specific change to make, in which file, in which function)
   • •Files modified (exact list)
   • •Blast radius (which passing scenarios could be affected by this change)
   • •Fixable: Yes / No (with rationale if No)
3. •Order by independence. Fix items that don't affect each other come first. Fixes to shared code come last.
4. •Separate fixable from unfixable. Unfixable items (spec-ambiguity, design-gap, validation-error) are documented but not actioned. They become recommendations for upstream revision.

Fix Execution Standards

1. •Minimal diff. Change the fewest lines possible. No refactoring, no improvements, no style changes.
2. •Verify after each fix. After addressing one root cause, re-run the affected scenarios. Record pass/fail.
3. •Do not modify validation scripts. validate.sh and demo.sh are QA artifacts. If they contain errors, flag them as validation-error — do not edit them.
4. •Do not modify upstream documents. SPEC.md, DESIGN.md, RESEARCH.md are upstream contracts. If they need changes, document the recommendation.

Git Standards

1. •Single branch. All fixes go on fix/validation-fixes branched from develop.
2. •One commit per root cause. Commit message format: fix(component): description — fixes Scenario 6.X, 6.Y
3. •Merge with --no-ff. Back into develop when all fixable items are addressed.
4. •Do not merge to main. The re-validation phase decides if main gets updated.

Output Templates

Fix Plan (presented to user BEFORE executing)

# Fix Plan — [Project Name]

## Summary

| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| Total Failures | [N] |
| Unique Root Causes | [N] |
| Fixable | [N] |
| Unfixable (upstream) | [N] |

## Fixable Items

### RC-001: [Short description]

- **Classification**: [code-bug / data-issue / setup-issue]
- **Affected Scenarios**: 6.X, 6.Y, 6.Z
- **Affected Requirements**: REQ-XX-001, REQ-XX-002
- **Diagnosis**: [What's wrong. Specific file, function, line if possible. Why it produces wrong output.]
- **Proposed Fix**: [Exact change. "In `file.py`, function `parse_query()`, change the comparison from `>` to `>=` on line 47."]
- **Files Modified**: [`src/file.py`]
- **Blast Radius**: [Which passing scenarios touch this code path. "Scenarios 6.1 and 6.4 also use `parse_query()` — will re-verify after fix."]

### RC-002: [Short description]
[Same structure]

## Unfixable Items (Require Upstream Changes)

### RC-003: [Short description]

- **Classification**: [spec-ambiguity / design-gap / validation-error]
- **Affected Scenarios**: 6.X
- **Affected Requirements**: REQ-XX-003
- **Diagnosis**: [What's wrong and why it can't be fixed at the code level.]
- **Recommendation**: [What upstream document needs to change and how. E.g., "SPEC.md §4.2 should clarify whether results are sorted by relevance or alphabetically."]

## Execution Order

1. RC-001 — isolated, no blast radius
2. RC-002 — touches shared utility, verify Scenarios 6.1, 6.4 after

FIX_REPORT.md (produced AFTER executing fixes)

# FIX_REPORT.md — [Project Name]

## 1. Diagnosis Summary

### 1.1 Input

- **Validation Report**: VALIDATION_REPORT.md dated [date]
- **Total Scenario Failures**: [N] of [M] scenarios
- **Failing Scenarios**: 6.X, 6.Y, 6.Z, ...

### 1.2 Root Cause Analysis

| Root Cause ID | Classification | Affected Scenarios | Fixable |
|--------------|---------------|-------------------|---------|
| RC-001 | [category] | 6.X, 6.Y | ✅ Yes |
| RC-002 | [category] | 6.Z | ✅ Yes |
| RC-003 | [category] | 6.W | ❌ No — [reason] |

## 2. Fixes Applied

### 2.1 RC-001: [Short description]

- **Classification**: [category]
- **Scenarios Fixed**: 6.X, 6.Y
- **Change**: [Exact description of what was changed]
- **Files Modified**: [`src/file.py` lines 45-48]
- **Commit**: `[hash] fix(component): description`
- **Verification After Fix**:
  - Scenario 6.X: ✅ PASS (was ❌ FAIL)
  - Scenario 6.Y: ✅ PASS (was ❌ FAIL)
  - Scenario 6.1: ✅ PASS (blast radius check — still passes)

### 2.2 RC-002: [Short description]
[Same structure]

## 3. Unfixable Items

### 3.1 RC-003: [Short description]

- **Classification**: [spec-ambiguity / design-gap / validation-error]
- **Affected Scenarios**: 6.W
- **Why Unfixable**: [Detailed explanation]
- **Recommendation**: [Specific upstream change needed]
- **Impact**: [What remains broken and what the user should know]

## 4. Post-Fix State

### 4.1 Scenario Status After Fixes

| Scenario | Before Fix | After Fix | Root Cause |
|----------|-----------|-----------|------------|
| 6.1 | ✅ PASS | ✅ PASS | (blast radius check) |
| 6.2 | ❌ FAIL | ✅ PASS | RC-001 |
| 6.3 | ❌ FAIL | ✅ PASS | RC-001 |
| 6.4 | ✅ PASS | ✅ PASS | (blast radius check) |
| 6.5 | ❌ FAIL | ❌ FAIL | RC-003 (unfixable) |

### 4.2 Summary

| Metric | Before | After |
|--------|--------|-------|
| Passing | [N] | [N] |
| Failing | [N] | [N] |
| Pass Rate | [N%] | [N%] |
| Remaining Failures | — | [N] (all unfixable at code level) |

## 5. Git History

[Paste: git log --oneline --graph develop]

## 6. Recommendation

[One of:]
- **Ready for re-validation.** All fixable issues addressed. [N] unfixable items remain — [summary].
- **Partial fix.** [N] of [M] root causes addressed. Remaining fixes require [upstream changes]. Recommend re-validation to confirm fixes don't introduce regressions.
- **Upstream revision needed.** [N] failures require changes to [SPEC.md / DESIGN.md] before code fixes are possible. Recommend returning to Phase [1/2].

Quality Checklist

• • Every scenario failure from VALIDATION_REPORT.md is accounted for (either fixed or flagged as unfixable)
• • Every fix traces back to a specific root cause with classification
• • Fix plan was presented to user before execution
• • No changes were made to validate.sh or demo.sh
• • No changes were made to SPEC.md, DESIGN.md, or RESEARCH.md
• • Each fix was verified by re-running affected scenarios
• • Blast radius scenarios were re-checked after each fix
• • No passing scenarios were broken by fixes (or breakage is documented)
• • Git history shows one commit per root cause on fix/validation-fixes branch
• • Unfixable items include specific recommendations for upstream changes
• • FIX_REPORT.md §4 shows before/after comparison for all scenarios
• • FIX_REPORT.md §6 gives a clear next-step recommendation