nw-bugfix
**nw-bugfix** is a structured bug resolution workflow that diagnoses root causes using the nw-troubleshooter agent, pauses for user validation of findings, then executes a test-driven fix delivery through regression testing and paradigm-specific code changes. Use this skill when bugs require systematic investigation with user sign-off before implementation, ensuring every defect produces tests that prevent recurrence.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave /tmp/nw-bugfix && cp -r /tmp/nw-bugfix/nWave/skills/nw-bugfix ~/.claude/skills/nw-bugfixSKILL.md
# NW-BUGFIX: Defect Resolution Workflow
**Wave**: CROSS_WAVE
**Agents**: Rex (nw-troubleshooter) → selected crafter (OOP or FP per project paradigm)
## Overview
End-to-end bug fix pipeline: diagnose root cause, review findings with user, then deliver regression tests that fail with the bug and pass with the fix. Ensures every defect produces a test that prevents recurrence.
## Flow
```
INPUT: "{bug-description}"
│
├─ Phase 1: Root Cause Analysis (@nw-troubleshooter)
│ └─ /nw-root-why "{bug-description}"
│ └─ Output: RCA document with root cause chain + fix proposal
│
├─ Phase 2: User Review (INTERACTIVE — STOP here)
│ └─ Present RCA findings to user
│ └─ User confirms root cause + approves fix direction
│ └─ If user rejects → refine RCA or stop
│
└─ Phase 3: Regression Test + Fix
└─ /nw-deliver "fix-{bug-id}" — roadmap-based bugfix flow
└─ Paradigm detection determines crafter (OOP or FP)
└─ Regression test (RED) → fix (GREEN) → verify (COMMIT)
```
## Execution Steps
### Phase 1: Root Cause Analysis
**Skill loading**: The troubleshooter loads its skills from `~/.claude/skills/nw-{skill}/SKILL.md`:
- `nw-five-whys-methodology` — core investigation methodology
- `nw-investigation-techniques` — systematic debugging patterns
- `nw-post-mortem-framework` — structured incident analysis
Invoke @nw-troubleshooter via Agent tool:
```
Execute *investigate-root-cause for the following defect:
{bug-description}
Configuration:
- investigation_depth: 5
- multi_causal: true
- evidence_required: true
Produce:
1. Root cause chain (5 Whys with evidence at each level)
2. Contributing factors
3. Proposed fix with specific code changes
4. Files affected
5. Risk assessment of the fix
```
After the troubleshooter returns, present findings to the user. Include:
- Root cause summary (1-2 sentences)
- Evidence chain
- Proposed fix
- Files to modify
- Risk level
**STOP and wait for user confirmation before proceeding to Phase 3.**
### Phase 2: User Review
Present the RCA findings and ask:
1. "Does this root cause match your understanding?"
2. "Do you approve the proposed fix direction?"
3. "Any additional constraints or context?"
If user rejects:
- Refine the RCA with additional context
- Or stop the workflow entirely
If user approves → proceed to Phase 3.
### Phase 3: Regression Test + Fix
Phase 3 dispatches the fix through the roadmap-based bugfix flow. It does
paradigm detection (reads project CLAUDE.md for `## Development Paradigm`),
crafter selection (@nw-software-crafter for OOP, @nw-functional-software-crafter
for FP), DES enforcement, and reads the rigor profile from
`.nwave/des-config.json`.
**Preparation:**
1. Derive feature-id: `fix-{kebab-case-bug-summary}` (max 5 words)
2. Create `docs/feature/{feature-id}/deliver/` directory
3. Prepare RCA context from Phase 1 output (root cause, files affected, proposed fix)
Delegate to `/nw-deliver`:
```
/nw-deliver "fix-{bug-summary}"
```
The deliver orchestrator builds a minimal two-step roadmap:
**Step 01-01: Regression test (RED)**
- Write a test that reproduces the exact defect
- Test MUST fail against current code (proves the bug exists)
- Test location: `tests/regression/{component}/` or `tests/bugs/`
- Test name: `test_bug_{description}.py`
**Step 01-02: Fix implementation (GREEN)**
- Implement the minimal fix identified in RCA
- Run ALL tests — regression test must now PASS
- Existing tests must not regress
The crafter handles the TDD cycle (3-phase canon RED → GREEN → COMMIT per
ADR-025) with DES monitoring.
## Success Criteria
- [ ] Root cause identified with evidence at each causal level
- [ ] User reviewed and approved fix direction
- [ ] Regression test written that fails with the bug
- [ ] Fix implemented that makes the regression test pass
- [ ] All existing tests still pass (no regressions)
- [ ] Commit with conventional message: `fix(scope): description`
## Examples
### Example 1: Runtime crash
```
/nw-bugfix "DES hook crashes with FileNotFoundError when template schema is missing"
```
Phase 1: Rex traces to missing `step-tdd-cycle-schema.json` in plugin cache.
Phase 2: User confirms.
Phase 3: `/nw-deliver "fix-missing-template-schema"` → crafter writes `test_bug_missing_template_schema.py` (RED), adds fallback path resolution (GREEN), commits.
### Example 2: Silent failure
```
/nw-bugfix "Skills plugin reports success but installs zero files when source has nw-prefixed layout"
```
Phase 1: Rex traces to `is_public_skill()` returning False for all nw-prefixed names due to ownership map key mismatch.
Phase 2: User confirms.
Phase 3: `/nw-deliver "fix-ownership-map-keys"` → crafter writes regression test with nw-prefixed fixture (RED), fixes ownership map keys (GREEN), commits.
### Example 3: Functional project bug
```
/nw-bugfix "Pipeline composition breaks when filter predicate returns None"
```
Phase 1: Rex traces to missing None guard in compose() function.
Phase 2: User confirms.
Phase 3: `/nw-deliver "fix-compose-none-guard"` → paradigm detected as FP → @nw-functional-software-crafter writes property-based test (RED), adds None guard (GREEN), commits.
## Notes
- This command is for **known defects** (something is broken). For new features, use `/nw-deliver`.
- The regression test is the primary deliverable — it prevents the bug from recurring.
- Keep the fix minimal. Refactoring belongs in `/nw-refactor`, not here.
- If the RCA reveals a design flaw (not just a code bug), escalate to `/nw-design` before fixing.
- Phase 3 delegates to `/nw-deliver`, which handles paradigm detection, DES enforcement, and rigor profile automatically.Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Review dimensions for acceptance test quality - happy path bias, GWT compliance, business language purity, coverage completeness, walking skeleton user-centricity, priority validation, observable behavior assertions, traceability coverage, and walking skeleton boundary proof
Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement
5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.
Comprehensive architecture patterns, methodologies, quality frameworks, and evaluation methods for solution architects. Load when designing system architecture or selecting patterns.
Canonical AT completeness gate — research-anchored 7-category taxonomy (C1-C7) + 15-item mechanical checklist. Paradigm-neutral. Drives acceptance-designer reviewer verdict deterministically.