Essential session storage is required to sign in. Optional analytics remain off unless you allow them.
Choose a small reproducible bug in an open-source, personal, or synthetic repository and complete it using a disciplined coding-agent workflow. Requirements: (1) write a bounded task brief with outcome, scope, non-goals, acceptance criteria, and prohibited actions; (2) map the relevant request or call path before editing; (3) use a conservative permission posture and explain why each capability is needed; (4) make the smallest convention-aligned code change; (5) add a regression test that would have failed before the fix; (6) review the diff against the task brief; (7) produce a concise handoff with changed files, commands run, results, remaining risk, and next action. Use only authorized or synthetic data and do not deploy the project.
The task brief, system map, acceptance criteria, permission boundary, and handoff distinguish observed facts from assumptions and make the implementation scope clear.
The change is narrow, follows repository conventions, avoids unrelated churn, and explains why every changed file is necessary for the bug fix.
A focused regression test demonstrates the original failure, relevant checks pass, and the final handoff states what was and was not verified honestly.
Use this README structure to make the work reviewable.
DevPath fetches a read-only, size-capped snapshot. Submitted code is never executed.
# A safe agent-assisted bug-fix workflow ## Goal Choose a small reproducible bug in an open-source, personal, or synthetic repository and complete it using a disciplined coding-agent workflow. Requirements: (1) write a bounded task brief with outcome, scope, non-goals, acceptance criteria, and prohibited actions; (2) map the relevant request or call path before editing; (3) use a conservative permission posture and explain why each capability is needed; (4) make the smallest convention-aligned code change; (5) add a regression test that would have failed before the fix; (6) review the diff against the task brief; (7) produce a concise handoff with changed files, commands run, results, remaining risk, and next action. Use only authorized or synthetic data and do not deploy the project. ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] Task framing and evidence: The task brief, system map, acceptance criteria, permission boundary, and handoff distinguish observed facts from assumptions and make the implementation scope clear. - [ ] Focused implementation: The change is narrow, follows repository conventions, avoids unrelated churn, and explains why every changed file is necessary for the bug fix. - [ ] Behavioral verification: A focused regression test demonstrates the original failure, relevant checks pass, and the final handoff states what was and was not verified honestly. ## Verification - [ ] Document installation and run commands. - [ ] Record automated checks and their exact commands. - [ ] Add representative output, screenshots, or a short demo where useful. - [ ] Confirm failure paths and known constraints. ## Decision log ### Decision title - Context: - Choice: - Alternatives considered: - Tradeoffs: ## Evidence - Link each rubric criterion to the file, test, or artifact that demonstrates it. ## Known limitations - List what is intentionally out of scope and what should be improved next.