---
name: qa
description: Run a conversational QA session, capture reproducible problems, and prepare issues for the repository's configured tracker.
---

# QA Session

Run an interactive QA session. Use [the configured tracker](../../../docs/agents/issue-tracker.md) for issue operations and [domain documentation](../../../docs/agents/domain.md) for project language.

## For each issue the user raises

### 1. Listen and lightly clarify

Let the user describe the problem in their own words. Ask **at most 2-3 short clarifying questions** focused on:

- What they expected vs what actually happened
- Steps to reproduce (if not obvious)
- Whether it's consistent or intermittent

Do NOT over-interview. If the description is clear enough to file, move on.

### 2. Explore the codebase in the background

While talking to the user, kick off an Agent (subagent_type=Explore) in the background to understand the relevant area. The goal is NOT to find a fix — it's to:

- Learn the domain language used in that area (check `CONTEXT.md`)
- Understand what the feature is supposed to do
- Identify the user-facing behavior boundary

This context helps you write a better issue — but the issue itself should NOT reference specific files, line numbers, or internal implementation details.

### 3. Assess scope: single issue or breakdown?

Before filing, decide whether this is a **single issue** or needs to be **broken down** into multiple issues.

Break down when:

- The fix spans multiple independent areas (e.g. "the form validation is wrong AND the success message is missing AND the redirect is broken")
- There are clearly separable concerns that different people could work on in parallel
- The user describes something that has multiple distinct failure modes or symptoms

Keep as a single issue when:

- It's one behavior that's wrong in one place
- The symptoms are all caused by the same root behavior

### 4. File the issue(s)

When the user asked to file issues, create them using the configured tracker commands and share URLs without a redundant approval step. For discussion-only QA, return drafts; ask before publishing if publication was not requested. On an ambiguous create failure, check whether the issue already exists before retrying; on unavailable access, hand off the draft and state the limitation.

Issues must be **durable** — they should still make sense after major refactors. Write from the user's perspective.

#### For a single issue

Use this template:

```
## What happened

[Describe the actual behavior the user experienced, in plain language]

## What I expected

[Describe the expected behavior]

## Steps to reproduce

1. [Concrete, numbered steps a developer can follow]
2. [Use domain terms from the codebase, not internal module names]
3. [Include relevant inputs, flags, or configuration]

## Additional context

[Any extra observations from the user or from codebase exploration that help frame the issue — e.g. "this only happens when using the Docker layer, not the filesystem layer" — use domain language but don't cite files]
```

#### For a breakdown (multiple issues)

Create issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue numbers.

Use this template for each sub-issue:

```
## Parent issue

#<parent-issue-number> (if you created a tracking issue) or "Reported during QA session"

## What's wrong

[Describe this specific behavior problem — just this slice, not the whole report]

## What I expected

[Expected behavior for this specific slice]

## Steps to reproduce

1. [Steps specific to THIS issue]

## Blocked by

- #<issue-number> (if this issue can't be fixed until another is resolved)

Or "None — can start immediately" if no blockers.

## Additional context

[Any extra observations relevant to this slice]
```

When creating a breakdown:

- **Prefer many thin issues over few thick ones** — each should be independently fixable and verifiable
- **Mark blocking relationships honestly** — if issue B genuinely can't be tested until issue A is fixed, say so. If they're independent, mark both as "None — can start immediately"
- **Create issues in dependency order** so you can reference real issue numbers in "Blocked by"
- **Maximize parallelism** — the goal is that multiple people (or agents) can grab different issues simultaneously

#### Rules for all issue bodies

- **No file paths or line numbers** — these go stale
- **Use the project's domain language** (check `CONTEXT.md` if it exists)
- **Describe behaviors, not code** — "the sync service fails to apply the patch" not "applyPatch() throws on line 42"
- **Record reproduction evidence** — ask for missing steps when they matter; if unavailable, state what is known and unknown rather than inventing a reproduction or blocking a useful report
- **Keep it concise** — a developer should be able to read the issue in 30 seconds

After filing, print all issue URLs (with blocking relationships summarized) and ask: "Next issue, or are we done?"

### 5. Continue the session

Keep going until the user says they're done. Each issue is independent — don't batch them.