# BUG_REPORT: add-loop-templates-onboarding

## Methodology

Adversarial review of all changed files. Searched for: race conditions, token injection, path traversal, missing error handling, backward compat breaks, and edge cases in prompt resolution.

## Findings

### Bug 1 (LOW): `_resolve_prompt` writes temp file even when no tokens are substituted

If a prompt file exists but contains no tokens (e.g. a static prompt), `_resolve_prompt` still reads it, does the substitution loop (which is a no-op), and writes a copy to `outputs/tickN-<role>-prompt.md`. This is wasteful but not incorrect -- the harness receives an identical prompt either way. The temp file provides an audit trail of what was sent to the harness, which is actually useful for debugging.

**Severity:** LOW (performance/ cleanliness, not correctness)
**Fix:** None needed for v1. The audit trail value outweighs the minor I/O cost.

### Bug 2 (LOW): No token for `{cwd}` in content-level substitution

The harness command template supports `{cwd}` as an argv-level token, but `_resolve_prompt` does not substitute `{cwd}` in the prompt file content. If a prompt author writes `{cwd}` in the prompt text, it will appear literally in the resolved prompt. The SPEC does not list `{cwd}` as a content-level token (R1 lists `{task_brief}`, `{acceptance_criteria}`, `{next_hint}`, `{current_task}`, `{current_phase}`, `{verdict}`, `{artifact_content}`), so this is by design -- `{cwd}` is a harness-command token, not a content-level token.

**Severity:** LOW (documentation, not a bug)
**Fix:** None needed. The prompt files use "Working directory: the cwd you were launched with" instead of `{cwd}`.

### Bug 3 (INFO): `loop-orchestrate.md` references `code_review:awaiting_approval` then `--approve` in one step

The orchestrate prompt says "If in `code_review`: transition to `code_review:awaiting_approval`, then approve." This is two `status.py` calls in one tick. The orchestrator role is a single LLM session that can make multiple CLI calls, so this is valid. The runner does not restrict the number of subprocess calls the orchestrator makes.

**Severity:** INFO (not a bug)
**Fix:** None needed.

## Summary

No correctness bugs found. Two LOW-severity observations and one INFO note. The implementation is solid for v1.

**Verdict: CLEAN**