Builds a well-formed bug (defect) report from raw observation notes - fills in summary, environment, steps to reproduce, expected vs actual, and severity rationale - and validates that each field has the load-bearing content reviewers and engineers need to triage. Also converts a single test-failure record (JUnit XML, Allure JSON, pytest log, Playwright report) into a classified, ready-to-file bug spec, and provides the adversarial review checklist that gates a report before it enters the tracker (required fields, single-description title test, severity-priority independence, reproduction quality). Use when a stakeholder reports a problem informally, when a CI failure artefact needs to become a triageable report, or when a drafted report needs a pre-filing quality audit.
81
95%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
80%
0.88xAverage score across 10 eval scenarios
High
Do not use without reviewing
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
100%
No invented monetary figures
100%
100%
No invented environment facts
100%
100%
Outstanding questions are enumerated
100%
100%
The frequency contradiction is surfaced
100%
100%
What happened and what should have happened are stated separately
83%
100%
Second-account claim is marked unverified
100%
100%
MUST NOT assert consistent reproduction from one observation
100%
100%
Title names the surface and the observable behaviour
87%
100%
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
100%
The prose-versus-response contradiction is the report's headline finding
96%
100%
MUST NOT merge impact and queue position into one judgement
95%
100%
No invented account or client facts
100%
100%
Timestamps carried as ambiguous
92%
100%
Request identifier preserved exactly
100%
100%
Outstanding items listed with the right owner
68%
62%
Title describes the observed failure, not the reporter's diagnosis
80%
30%
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
100%
MUST NOT propose filing a new item without checking the open ones
100%
100%
No invented fleet, version, or location
84%
96%
Match is stated as probable, not confirmed
43%
62%
Questions phrased for a two-minute answer from the floor
81%
100%
The mis-pallet consequence is recorded and marked second-hand
83%
100%
Frequency stated as unquantified
100%
66%
User impact and scheduling order reasoned separately
60%
70%
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
100%
MUST NOT carry the hand-typed assertion instead of the result file
100%
100%
The chat-versus-artefact contradiction is named
100%
100%
No fabricated revision identifier
100%
100%
Re-run instruction is derived only from recorded facts
93%
81%
Speculation is attributed, not adopted
85%
100%
Run history stated only as far as it is known
100%
100%
Environment carried from the artefact
100%
100%
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
100%
MUST NOT combine the unrelated failures into one item
100%
100%
No invented technical detail per item
100%
0%
Per-item questions for the customer
100%
100%
The onset contradiction is surfaced on the slow-page item
100%
100%
Items are cross-linked as one intake
100%
100%
Impact and scheduling urgency treated as separate judgements
100%
83%
Titles are single-clause and behavioural
75%
100%
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
100%
MUST NOT fill environment fields that no source supplies
100%
100%
Version conflict is surfaced rather than resolved
100%
100%
Reviewer's environment separated from the teammate's
100%
100%
Outstanding items listed with an owner
100%
100%
Reproduction described honestly for each source
100%
100%
Steps are numbered and start from a known state
50%
100%
Crash signature carried verbatim
100%
100%
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
100%
MUST NOT populate device fields the sources leave blank
100%
0%
No invented temperature values
100%
100%
Temperature scale flagged as unknown
73%
0%
Outstanding items listed and matched to Thursday's decision
100%
100%
Reference thermometer treated as unverified
41%
100%
Onset and frequency stated as the owner stated them
80%
30%
Observed and expected behaviour stated separately
60%
100%
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
0%
MUST NOT record the failure as consistently reproducible
100%
0%
All three frequency statements are surfaced together
100%
0%
'Empty' is quoted, not translated into a technical claim
80%
0%
No invented environment
100%
0%
Family member's attempt marked as not comparable
92%
0%
Source reliability is stated
100%
0%
Outstanding questions listed for the next patient contact
25%
0%
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
100%
MUST NOT convert 'latest Chrome' into a stated version
0%
100%
The leg contradiction is surfaced
100%
100%
No reconstructed URL or booking identifier
100%
100%
Single consolidated question list for the agency
100%
81%
Colleague's result recorded as uncertain
100%
100%
Observed state described from the evidence, not diagnosed
75%
100%
Steps are numbered and their unknown starting point is marked
70%
100%
Deliverable exists at the exact path
100%
100%
MUST NOT collapse user impact and fix order into one judgement
100%
100%
The lost-versus-not-lost contradiction is surfaced
100%
100%
No invented environment or timeline
100%
100%
Enterprise-customer report marked as unconfirmed
100%
100%
Outstanding facts listed as blocking questions
81%
100%
Reproduction status stated honestly
100%
100%
Title states the observed behaviour, not the customer's demand
100%
100%
Table of Contents