Guide for fixing bugs in ClaudeBar following Chicago School TDD and rich domain design. Use this skill when:
(1) User reports a bug or unexpected behavior
(2) Fixing a defect in existing functionality
(3) User asks "fix this bug" or "this doesn't work correctly"
(4) Correcting behavior that violates the user's mental model
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Fix Bug?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/tddworks-fix-bug-claudebar)
---
name: fix-bug
description: |
Guide for fixing bugs in ClaudeBar following Chicago School TDD and rich domain design. Use this skill when:
(1) User reports a bug or unexpected behavior
(2) Fixing a defect in existing functionality
(3) User asks "fix this bug" or "this doesn't work correctly"
(4) Correcting behavior that violates the user's mental model
---
# Fix Bug in ClaudeBar
Fix bugs using Chicago School TDD, root cause analysis, and rich domain design.
## Workflow
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. REPRODUCE & UNDERSTAND │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Reproduce the bug │
│ • Identify expected vs actual behavior │
│ • Locate the root cause in code │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 2. WRITE FAILING TEST (Red) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Write test that exposes the bug │
│ • Test should FAIL before fix │
│ • Test should verify CORRECT behavior │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 3. FIX & VERIFY (Green) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Implement minimal fix │
│ • Test now PASSES │
│ • All existing tests still pass │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
## Phase 1: Reproduce & Understand
### Identify the Bug
1. **Reproduce**: Follow exact steps to trigger the bug
2. **Expected**: What SHOULD happen (the person's mental model — USER_JOURNEYS)
3. **Actual**: What IS happening (current behavior)
4. **Root cause**: WHY it's happening (code analysis)
For a provider that shows the wrong thing or fails:
- **The log**: `~/Library/Logs/ClaudeBar/ClaudeBar.log` (`info` and above) — which data source answered, which step failed (lookup · fetch · mapping); `debug` goes to OSLog only ([troubleshooting](../../../docs/troubleshooting.md)).
- **The failed step**: `account.lastFailedStep` and `lastError` say whether the key, the request or the reading broke — fix that piece.
- **The real response**: capture the CLI's or API's actual answer, **redacted** (no token, email, name or real usage), as the test's fixture. Never log a token, key or cookie while investigating.
### Find the law it breaks
Read the design in order — USER_JOURNEYS, CANONICAL_MODEL, TARGET_ARCHITECTURE,
then the feature's or provider's `design.md`. The design docs are the source of truth ([AGENTS.md](../../../AGENTS.md#design-docs-are-the-source-of-truth)).
A bug is usually a law in [CANONICAL_MODEL.md](../../../docs/architecture/CANONICAL_MODEL.md) §5 (or a feature's
`design.md`) that the code breaks: find the law and its **one owner**, and fix it there, not
at a call site. If the right fix changes a law or moves it to another owner, that is a
design change: update the doc and ask the user to confirm before fixing. If no law covers
it, propose the law first.
### Locate in Architecture
> **Reference:** [MODULAR_DESIGN.md](../../../docs/architecture/MODULAR_DESIGN.md) (modules) ·
> [TARGET_ARCHITECTURE.md](../../../docs/architecture/TARGET_ARCHITECTURE.md) (how a provider runs) ·
> [ARCHITECTURE.md](../../../docs/architecture/ARCHITECTURE.md) (the app layers)
Find which module the behaviour lives in before you change it: the table in
[implement-feature → Architecture](../implement-feature/SKILL.md#architecture) is the
one map (where each thing lives, and where its tests go).
A bug or improvement in a provider is made in its JSON (or its mapping
script), or generically in `DataSources` — never with vendor-named Swift, and
never with a line in `ClaudeBarApp` that names it (providers are found by
`ProviderCatalog.detect()`). Modules never `import Domain`.
### Domain Invariants
Check if the bug violates domain invariants that should be maintained:
```swift
// Example: QuotaMonitor should maintain selection invariants
// - selectedProviderId should always point to an enabled provider
// - Domain should be self-validating (no external "ensure" calls needed)
```
## Phase 2: Write Failing Test (Red)
### Chicago School TDD
Name each test `should <outcome> [when <situation>]`, in the person's words, never a method, type or mechanism verb → [Naming tests](../implement-feature/references/tdd-patterns.md#naming-tests).
We follow **Chicago School TDD** (state-based testing):
- Test **state changes** and **return values**, not interactions
- Focus on the "what" (observable outcomes), not the "how" (method calls)
- Mocks stub dependencies to return data, not to verify calls
- No `verify()` calls - assert on resulting state instead
### Test Pattern
Test the CORRECT behavior, not the bug:
```swift
@MainActor
@Suite
struct {Component}Tests {
@Test func `should {correct outcome} when {the situation that showed the bug}`() async throws {
// Given - the response that triggers the bug, captured from the real CLI/API
let stub = try StubbedProvider(providerId: "codex")
defer { stub.cleanUp() }
stub.answerRPC(#"{"id":2,"result":{"rateLimits":{"primary":{"usedPercent":30,"windowDurationMins":10080}}}}"#)
// When - the real definition reads it
let usage = try await stub.make("codex").refreshPlain()
// Then - assert EXPECTED behavior (will FAIL before fix)
#expect(usage.quota(for: .session)?.windowDuration == 7 * 86400) // the window the provider stated
}
}
```
### Test Location
The test goes beside the code it pins (the table in Phase 1). For a migrated
provider, add the captured response to its golden tests in
`Modules/Providers/Tests/`; for a generic worker, to `Modules/DataSources/Tests/`.
### Run Test (Should FAIL)
```bash
tuist test Providers # one module's tests while working (schemes: Providers, DataSources, Domain, Infrastructure, AppTests, AcceptanceTests)
# tuist caches results; one suite for real, and the final check of everything:
xcodebuild test -workspace ClaudeBar.xcworkspace -scheme ClaudeBar-Workspace \
-destination 'platform=macOS,arch=arm64' -only-testing:ProvidersTests/ClaudeAPITests
xcodebuild test -workspace ClaudeBar.xcworkspace -scheme ClaudeBar-Workspace -destination 'platform=macOS,arch=arm64'
```
## Phase 3: Fix & Verify (Green)
### Fix Guidelines
1. **Minimal change**: Fix only what's broken
2. **At the law's owner**: fix the one type that owns the rule (CANONICAL §5), not a call site or a view
3. **A provider is data**: its JSON or script, or a generic rule in `DataSources` that every definition gains — never a branch on a provider's id
4. **Maintain invariants**: the owner stays self-validating — tell, don't ask
5. **No over-engineering**: Don't refactor unrelated code
### Domain Design Principles
When fixing domain bugs, ensure:
```swift
// 1. Domain maintains its own invariants
public init(...) {
// Validate on construction
selectFirstEnabledIfNeeded() // Called internally, not externally
}
// 2. Public API hides implementation details
public func setProviderEnabled(_ id: String, enabled: Bool) {
provider.isEnabled = enabled
if !enabled {
selectFirstEnabledIfNeeded() // Private - called automatically
}
}
// 3. Private methods for internal invariant maintenance
private func selectFirstEnabledIfNeeded() { ... }
```
### Verify Fix
Run the same suite again (it should PASS now), then the full `xcodebuild test`
(`tuist test` skips cached targets). Then the docs in the same change: a
provider's `README.md` Gotchas when the person can hit it, its `design.md`
when the reading changed, and the CHANGELOG line.
## Checklist
- [ ] Bug reproduced and understood
- [ ] Root cause identified in code
- [ ] Failing test written (exposes bug)
- [ ] Test FAILS before fix
- [ ] Minimal fix implemented
- [ ] Test PASSES after fix
- [ ] All existing tests still pass
- [ ] Domain invariants maintained (if applicable)
- [ ] Full `xcodebuild test` green
- [ ] Docs updated where the person or a contributor would look (provider README / design.md)
- [ ] One line under `## [Unreleased]` in `CHANGELOG.md`, under its heading (`Fixed` / `Changed`): the effect in the person's words, ≤300 characters, an absolute issue or PR link