22 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
22 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
|
# Bug Report: project-scoping-enforcement
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Summary
|
||
|
|
Critical process violation: the agent performed all implementation work before creating a task, completely bypassing the framework's workflow enforcement.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Bugs Found
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Bug 1: No framework self-enforcement prevents untasked work (Critical)
|
||
|
|
- **Severity**: Critical
|
||
|
|
- **Location**: Agent behavior, not code
|
||
|
|
- **Description**: The agent identified 7 scoping issues, then directly implemented all fixes across 20+ files without first creating a task through `status.py --create-task`. The task was only created *after* all work was done, as a retrospective documentation exercise.
|
||
|
|
- **Reproduction**: Any agent session where the user asks for work to be done. Nothing prevents the agent from editing files directly.
|
||
|
|
- **Suggested Fix**: This is a behavioral fix, not a code fix. The agent should always create a task first for any non-trivial work, then implement within that task's phase constraints.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Bug 2: Process gap — no automated check that edits have a corresponding task
|
||
|
|
- **Severity**: Medium
|
||
|
|
- **Location**: Framework enforcement model
|
||
|
|
- **Description**: `status.py --can-edit` only checks if a *task* is in the right phase for code edits. But it doesn't verify that the files being edited are *within* that task's scope. An agent can create task "foo" for project A, then edit files in project B without any task at all.
|
||
|
|
- **Suggested Fix**: Future enhancement — `--can-edit` could optionally check that the files being modified are relevant to the task's SPEC.md or DESIGN.md scope.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Score
|
||
|
|
+10 (Bug 1 is a process violation worth documenting; Bug 2 is a future enhancement)
|