Ui Bug Investigator

Copy this checklist and update as you complete each step:

Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Consume Component Map
- [ ] Step 2: Classify Symptom
- [ ] Step 3: Identify Target Components
- [ ] Step 4: Run Checks
- [ ] Step 5: Assess Confidence
- [ ] Step 6: Output DiagnosisReport
- [ ] Step 7: Persist Artifact

Note: If you've lost context of previous steps (e.g., after context compaction), check the progress checklist above. Resume from the last unchecked item. Re-read relevant reference files if needed.

Step 1: Consume Component Map

Read the ComponentMap artifact from .claude/qa-cache/component-maps/.

Check completeness:

• If "partial" or "shallow": warn the user — "Component map is {completeness} ({N} unresolved imports). Diagnosis may miss components behind unresolved imports. Run --depth N on the mapper for deeper tracing."
• If "full": proceed silently.

Step 2: Classify Symptom

Map the user's reported symptom to one or more diagnostic categories:

If the symptom clearly maps to a single category, load only that reference. Do not run all checks when one category is sufficient.

Step 3: Identify Target Components

From the ComponentMap, select the components to investigate:

1. Start from the component closest to the reported symptom (the user named it, or it renders the broken UI area).
2. Walk up the tree to its parent (layout, wrapper).
3. Walk down to its direct children (data providers, conditional renderers).
4. Stop at library boundaries — do not investigate internals of @radix-ui, shadcn/ui, @mui, etc.

Target 3-8 components. If more than 8 are plausible, narrow by asking the user one question.

Step 4: Run Checks

Read the reference file(s) identified in Step 2. For each target component, apply the relevant checklist items from the reference.

For each check:

• Read the component source file at the referenced path.
• Evaluate the check's condition against the actual code.
• Classify the result:
  • FLAGGED — Code matches the failure pattern. Record the file:line, the specific code, and why it matches.
  • CLEAR — Code was checked and does not match the failure pattern.
  • SKIPPED — Check does not apply to this component (e.g., event check on a server component). Record the reason.

Stop checking a component after the first FLAGGED item with High confidence. Continue checking other components.

Step 5: Assess Confidence

For each FLAGGED finding, assign confidence:

• High — The code directly produces the reported symptom (e.g., missing key prop causes re-mount on every render, matching the user's "flicker" report).
• Medium — The code could produce the symptom but other causes are also plausible.
• Low — The code is suspicious but the connection to the symptom is indirect.

Step 6: Output DiagnosisReport

Present findings in this order:

## Diagnosis: [symptom restated]

FLAGGED  [file:line] — [description]
  [2-3 sentence explanation]
  Evidence: [observation 1] | [observation 2] | [observation 3]

CLEAR  [ComponentName] ([file]) — [reason cleared]
CLEAR  [ComponentName] ([file]) — [reason cleared]

SKIPPED  [Category] — [reason]

Checked: [N] components ([categories]) | Not checked: [categories] | Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]

If multiple FLAGGED findings: list the highest-confidence one first. If no FLAGGED findings, output the inconclusive format:

## Diagnosis: Inconclusive

Investigated [N] components across [categories]. No root cause identified.

What might help:
- [specific ask 1]
- [specific ask 2]
- [specific ask 3]

Checked: [N] components ([categories]) | Not checked: [categories] | Confidence: --

Step 7: Persist Artifact

Save the DiagnosisReport to .claude/qa-cache/artifacts/diag-{timestamp}-{id}.json with:

• version: "1.0"
• skill: "ui-bug-investigator"
• issueClassification: the category from Step 2
• rootCause: the highest-confidence FLAGGED finding (or null)
• differentialDiagnosis: all CLEAR items with their cleared reasons
• suggestedFix: a one-line description of what to change (consumed by component-fix-and-verify)

Handoff

Pass the DiagnosisReport artifact path to qa-coordinator. The report contains structured rootCause, differentialDiagnosis, and suggestedFix fields consumed by component-fix-and-verify.

References