/report — Comprehensive Bug Report and GitHub Issue Creation

Investigate bugs end-to-end: collect symptoms, run /trace for root cause analysis, capture browser evidence when available, pull observability data from project-configured tools, and auto-create a GitHub issue with all findings attached.

When to Use

• A bug needs a thorough, documented investigation before fixing
• A GitHub issue is needed with reproduction steps, root cause, and evidence
• Multiple evidence sources (code, browser, observability) should be combined into one report
• Orchestrator or user wants a self-contained bug report that someone can act on without reproducing
• During QA loop: test failures against wish acceptance criteria need investigation

Dependencies

• agent-browser — required for browser-based evidence capture (screenshots, console logs, network requests). Install separately: agent-browser must be on PATH for Phase 3 to work. If unavailable, Phase 3 degrades gracefully.

QA Loop Integration

When invoked during the QA loop (after merge to dev), link findings to wish acceptance criteria:

1. Read the wish's success criteria from .genie/wishes/<slug>/WISH.md.
2. For each QA failure, map it to the specific acceptance criterion it violates.
3. Include the criterion reference in the report: Criterion: "<criterion text>" — FAIL.

Auto-invocation chain for QA failures:

QA failure → /report (investigate + document) → /trace (root cause) → /fix (correct) → retest

Flow

Phase 1: Collect Symptoms

Accept user input for the bug investigation:

• Bug description: what's going wrong
• URL (optional): page or endpoint where the bug manifests
• Error messages: any error text, stack traces, or console output
• Expected vs actual behavior: what should happen vs what does happen

If no details are provided, ask clarifying questions one at a time via AskUserQuestion. Never batch questions. Minimum viable input: a bug description.

Phase 2: Run /trace (Code-Level Investigation)

This phase is ALWAYS run — it is the foundation of every report.

1. Dispatch the /trace skill with the collected symptoms.
2. /trace performs: source analysis, reproduction, root cause hypothesis, causal chain construction.
3. Collect the trace report:
   • Root cause: file, line, condition
   • Evidence: reproduction steps, traces, proof
   • Causal chain: root cause -> intermediate effects -> observed symptom
   • Recommended correction: what to change, where, why
   • Affected scope: other files or features impacted
   • Confidence: high / medium / low

If /trace fails or cannot determine root cause, note in the report: "Code investigation incomplete — /trace could not determine root cause." Continue with remaining phases.

Phase 3: Browser Investigation (Opportunistic)

Detection — check if browser investigation is possible:

• User provided a URL
• A dev server is running on common ports: 3000, 3001, 4200, 5173, 5174, 8080, 8000
• package.json has a dev or start script that could be started

If browser is available, use agent-browser capabilities:

Also capture:

• Console logs: errors and warnings from the page
• Network requests: failed requests, slow requests, error responses

Prefer screenshots over video — smaller, easier to embed in issues. Only record video when reproduction requires multi-step interaction.

If browser is NOT available, skip this phase and note in report:

"Browser evidence not available — no URL provided and no dev server detected."

Phase 4: Observability Data (Project-Dependent)

Detection — check project for configured observability tools:

If found, use available CLI/API to pull recent errors:

• Sentry: sentry-cli issues list --project <project> or API via curl
• PostHog: query recent error events
• DataDog: query APM traces
• Generic logs: search recent entries for related error patterns

Each integration is independent — if one fails, continue with others.

If nothing found, skip this phase and note in report:

"No observability integrations detected in this project."

Phase 5: Compile Report

Merge all evidence into a structured GitHub issue body using this template:

## Bug Report: <title>

### Summary
<1-2 sentence description of the bug>

### Reproduction Steps
1. <step 1>
2. <step 2>
3. <step 3>

### Expected Behavior
<what should happen>

### Actual Behavior
<what happens instead>

### Root Cause Analysis
**Source:** `/trace` investigation
**File:** `<path>:<line>`
**Cause:** <description>
**Causal chain:** <root cause> -> <intermediate effects> -> <observed symptom>
**Confidence:** <high/medium/low>

### Evidence

#### Screenshots
<embedded screenshots from agent-browser, if captured>

#### Console Logs
<captured console errors/warnings, if available>

#### Network
<failed requests, timing issues, error responses, if captured>

#### Performance
<performance anomalies, if profiled>

#### Observability
<Sentry errors, PostHog events, DataDog traces, if available>

### Environment
- **OS:** <detected via process.platform>
- **Runtime:** <node/bun version>
- **Browser:** <if applicable>
- **Key dependencies:** <relevant package versions>

### Suggested Fix
<from /trace recommendation>

---
*Generated by genie `/report`*

For each evidence section that was skipped, include a note explaining why (e.g., "No dev server detected", "Sentry not configured in this project"). This helps the fixer know what to investigate further.

Phase 6: Create GitHub Issue

1. Check gh auth status — verify GitHub CLI is authenticated.
2. If authenticated: run gh issue create --title '<title>' --body '<report body>' with labels. Always use single quotes and escape internal single quotes to prevent shell injection from user-provided text.
3. Labels: bug + auto-detected area labels based on affected files:
   • Files in src/auth/ or lib/auth/ -> area:auth
   • Files in src/ui/ or components/ -> area:ui
   • Files in src/api/ or routes/ -> area:api
   • Files in tests/ or __tests__/ -> area:tests
   • Derive area from the top-level directory of affected files
4. If gh is not authenticated or issue creation fails, print the full report as markdown to stdout with:

   "Could not create GitHub issue. Here is the report for manual submission."

Degradation Rules

Each phase is independent — failure in one never blocks the others.

The report must always be produced. The only question is how rich the evidence is.

Dispatch

Report orchestrates multiple tools but must never modify source code — investigation only.

# Spawn a tracer subagent for investigation
genie agent spawn tracer

Browser dispatch uses direct agent-browser commands alongside the trace subagent.

Task Lifecycle Integration (v4)

After creating the GitHub issue, also create a PG task to track the bug in the task system:

Priority mapping from severity:

Graceful degradation: If PG is unavailable, skip genie task commands. The GitHub issue is the primary artifact — PG task tracking is an enhancement. The report must always be produced regardless of PG availability.

Example

User reports: "genie work dispatches engineers but they sit idle."

The report agent:

# 1. Collect symptoms (one question at a time)
# Agent asks: "What command did you run?" → "genie team create rlmx --wish tauri-docs-agent"
# Agent asks: "What did you see?" → "Engineers show welcome screen but empty prompt"

# 2. Run /trace
genie agent spawn tracer
genie agent send 'Trace: genie work dispatches engineers but they start idle. Check dispatch.ts and protocol-router.ts.' --to tracer
# Wait for diagnosis...

# 3. Capture evidence
# Screenshot of idle engineer pane showing empty ❯ prompt
# Output of: genie task status <slug> showing "in_progress" but no actual progress

# 4. Create GitHub issue with all findings
gh issue create --title "bug: genie work dispatch — engineers spawn idle without initial task prompt" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Summary
Engineers dispatched by genie work start idle because initialPrompt is missing from handleWorkerSpawn.

## Root Cause (from /trace)
dispatch.ts:532 — handleWorkerSpawn called without initialPrompt.
protocolRouter.sendMessage fails silently under concurrent dispatch (4/6 engineers got no message).

## Evidence
- [Screenshot: idle engineer pane]
- genie task status shows in_progress but engineers at empty prompt
- Native inbox files: engineer-1 through engineer-4 have no dispatch message

## Steps to Reproduce
1. genie team create test --wish <any-wish-with-2+-groups>
2. Team-lead runs genie work <slug>
3. Check engineer panes — they show empty ❯ prompt
EOF
)"

Rules

• Always run /trace first — it is the backbone of every report.
• One question at a time when collecting symptoms — never batch questions.
• Never modify source code — investigation only.
• Screenshots and videos are evidence, not decoration — only capture when relevant to the bug.
• Prefer screenshots over video (smaller, easier to embed in issues).
• Be specific about what was not captured and why — this helps the fixer know what to investigate further.
• The report must be self-contained — someone reading it should understand the bug without needing to reproduce it.
• If identical to an existing open issue, link to it instead of creating a duplicate.