SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsissue-triage

issue-triage

Coding & development

View repository

Updated 10-15 23:49

About this skill

Triaging a Patrol issue

Turn one incoming issue into a recommendation a human can act on in seconds. You guess; the human decides. Output is a tight summary of what you confirmed vs what you assume — never a wall of text.

This skill is orchestration + a catalog of the issues that actually recur. The catalog lives in references/common-issues.md — read it every run; it's what lets you triage without re-reading dozens of past issues.

Hard rules

  • Read-only. Do NOT comment, label, close, or edit the issue. Produce the recommendation (and a ready-to-paste reply the human may choose to send). The human applies labels and posts.
  • Don't guess versions or facts. If the version triple, logs, or repro aren't in the issue, that absence is the finding (→ likely "Information needed").
  • Reproduction beats theory. The strongest evidence for "Patrol bug" is a repro in Patrol's own dev/e2e_app or a reproducible example the reporter attached; the strongest evidence for "User issue" is that it only breaks in the reporter's project. Reproduce when it's cheap and would sharpen the verdict — and a device-free repro (a patrol_finders widget test, a CLI-only case) is exactly that cheap case: one flutter test/command, no device. Run it during triage instead of theorising.

Where you're running

  • Locally — you can reproduce (build/run dev/e2e_app, boot an emulator). Do so when it would flip a verdict between Patrol-bug and user-error.
  • On CI — no devices/emulators/Xcode. You cannot verify anything device-, build-, or platform-dependent. Say so, lower your confidence, and recommend "reproduce locally" rather than asserting a bug/no-bug. Static triage (version compatibility, missing-info, duplicate search, feature/docs classification) is still valid. Exception: a device-free repro (a pure patrol_finders widget test, a CLI-only case) is runnable on CI — reproduce those instead of deferring them.

Procedure

  1. Read the issue in full, with comments. gh issue view <n> --repo leancodepl/patrol --comments (if the plain view returns empty, fall back to --json body,comments,labels,author). Note the reporter's later comments — the real cause often surfaces there (verbose logs, "works on emulator", etc.).
  2. Extract the facts grid — what's present vs missing: versions (patrol, patrol_cli, flutter), patrol doctor, device vs emulator + OS/API level, platform (Android/iOS/web/CI), the exact command run, the exact error, and whether a minimal reproducible repo was shared. This grid drives everything below.
  3. Match the catalog first. Check references/common-issues.md — most reports match a known signature (version mismatch, connectedDebugAndroidTest failing, xcodebuild 65, bad test_bundle.dart import, forbidden char in test name, …). A catalog hit usually gives you the verdict, the confirmation step, and the reply text.
  4. If no catalog hit, apply the decision signals (below) to pick a verdict.
  5. Duplicate check. Search open + closed issues for the symptom before concluding: gh issue list --repo leancodepl/patrol --state all --search "<key error phrase>". The catalog lists the canonical "duplicate magnet" issues.
  6. Verify if it's cheap and decisive (local only) — reproduce in dev/e2e_app, or check the version pair against the compatibility table.
  7. Write the recommendation in the output format below.

Decision signals

Pick the primary verdict from these. A split is allowed and expected — if it's genuinely 60/40, say so and give both (the human breaks the tie).

Patrol bug — reproducible in dev/e2e_app/packages/patrol/example; cites a Patrol-generated file or internal source by path (test_bundle.dart, Automator.swift, app_options.dart); a clean "worked before upgrading X" regression boundary; a documented Patrol flag/API not behaving as specified.

Caution: a regression boundary tells you when behaviour changed, not whether it's a defect — an intentional change with a thin changelog looks identical. Check the PR/changelog intent (git log, the release PR); if the change was deliberate it's by-design (± docs gap), not a bug.

User issue (setup error/project specific problem) — only breaks in the reporter's project; version pair violates the compatibility table; ran flutter test instead of patrol test; native wiring wrong (MainActivityTest.java package, missing runner); stack trace lands in app packages (get_it, DI, their main()); fails on one physical device / OEM skin while green everywhere else; wrong bundle_id/package_name.

Information needed — no versions, no --verbose logs, no repro repo; placeholder template blocks left unfilled; logs pasted as screenshots; vague "doesn't work". This is the #3145 archetype: the report doesn't yet contain enough to act on. Default here when you can't tell bug from user-error because the report lacks the detail to decide — ask for the missing artifacts rather than over-analyzing.

Feature request — asks for a capability that doesn't exist yet ("add native X()", "support for X", "it would be great if"); body uses the ### Use case + ### Proposal template. A "bug" that is actually behaviour-by-design (app relaunch between tests, hit-testable == visible) is a feature/wontfix, not a bug.

Docs gap — asks a question rather than reporting a failure ("is it OK to gitignore test_bundle.dart?"); "not documented anywhere"; broken link / stale README; a looks-like-a-bug env issue whose real fix is an FAQ entry.

Duplicate — symptom matches an existing issue (see the catalog's duplicate-magnet list). Recommend "Duplicate of #X", don't re-triage the underlying problem.

Out-of-scope / wontfix — blocked by native-platform limits, or a large risky refactor the team has already declined (transport rewrite, run-without-installing, websockets). The catalog lists the recurring ones.

Output format (keep it tight — no bloat)

**#<n> <title>**
Verdict: <Primary> (<confidence %>)[ · secondary: <Other> (<%>)]
Why: <one sentence>

Confirmed (from the issue):
- <fact / version / error / platform actually stated — not inferred>

Assessment (best guess):
- <what's most likely happening, and the signal that points there>
- <catalog match: see common-issues.md "<card name>"> (if any)

Missing / would confirm it:
- <specific artifact to ask for, or the local repro that would decide it>

Duplicate of: #<x>  (omit if none)

Suggested action for the human:
- Label(s): <e.g. needs more info, waiting for response / bug + package:… / feature>
- <"reproduce locally" | "close as duplicate" | "ready-to-paste reply below">

Draft reply (optional, do NOT post):
> <short, specific, links the exact doc anchor — see common-issues.md for canned replies>

Rules for the output:

  • Confirmed = only what the issue literally states. Everything speculative goes under Assessment. Never blur the two — that separation is the whole point.
  • Cite issue numbers you compared against.
  • If running on CI, add one line: Note: CI run — device/build behaviour not verified.
  • No preamble, no restating the issue back at length. A triager should read it in ~20 seconds.

Keeping the catalog useful

If you triage something that clearly recurs and isn't in the catalog, note it at the end of your output as "catalog candidate" so a human can add it. Don't grow the catalog with one-off edge cases — only patterns seen repeatedly. It's a shortlist, not an issue archive.