Implement Issue Fix: GitHub Issue #$ARGUMENTS
Prerequisites
This skill implements fixes for GitHub issues based on RCA documents:
- Working in a local Git repository with GitHub origin
- RCA document exists at
docs/issues/issue-$ARGUMENTS.md
- GitHub CLI installed and authenticated (optional, for status updates)
RCA Document to Reference
Read RCA:
docs/issues/issue-$ARGUMENTS.md
Optional - View GitHub issue for context:
Implementation Instructions
1. Read and Understand RCA
- Read the ENTIRE RCA document thoroughly
- Review the GitHub issue details (issue #$ARGUMENTS)
- Understand the root cause
- Review the proposed fix strategy
- Note all files to modify
- Review testing requirements
2. Verify Current State — and check for drift
Before making changes:
- Confirm the issue still exists.
- Drift check: read each file the RCA names and compare against the RCA's "current code" snippets / line refs.
If the code has changed materially since the RCA, stop — surface the drift and suggest re-running
for issue #$ARGUMENTS rather than implementing a stale plan.
- Confirm the proposed fix still addresses the root cause — don't silently deviate.
2b. Get on the right branch
- In a worktree? Use it (it was created for this work).
- On the base branch, clean tree? Create a fix branch —
git checkout -b fix/issue-$ARGUMENTS-<slug>
git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD
- Already on a feature/fix branch? Use it (warn if its name doesn't reference #$ARGUMENTS).
- Dirty tree on the base branch? Stop — ask the user to commit or stash first.
3. Implement the Fix
Following the "Proposed Fix" section of the RCA:
For each file to modify:
a. Read the existing file
- Understand current implementation
- Locate the specific code mentioned in RCA
b. Make the fix
- Implement the change as described in RCA
- Follow the fix strategy exactly
- Maintain code style and conventions
- Add comments if the fix is non-obvious
c. Handle related changes
- Update any related code affected by the fix
- Ensure consistency across the codebase
- Update imports if needed
Stay on plan: implement what the RCA specifies — don't refactor unrelated code or add unplanned
"improvements." If you must deviate, note what changed and why, and surface it in the report (and the PR).
4. Add/Update Tests
Following the "Testing Requirements" from RCA:
Create test cases for:
- Verify the fix resolves the issue
- Test edge cases related to the bug
- Ensure no regression in related functionality
- Test any new code paths introduced
Test file location:
- Follow project's test structure
- Mirror the source file location
- Use descriptive test names
Test implementation:
python
def test_issue_$ARGUMENTS_fix():
"""Test that issue #$ARGUMENTS is fixed."""
# Arrange - set up the scenario that caused the bug
# Act - execute the code that previously failed
# Assert - verify it now works correctly
5. Run Validation
Execute validation commands from RCA:
bash
# Run linters
[from RCA validation commands]
# Run type checking
[from RCA validation commands]
# Run tests
[from RCA validation commands]
If validation fails:
- Fix the issues
- Re-run validation
- Don't proceed until all pass
6. Verify Fix
Manually verify:
- Follow reproduction steps from RCA
- Confirm issue no longer occurs
- Test edge cases
- Check for unintended side effects
7. Update Documentation
If needed:
- Update code comments
- Update API documentation
- Update README if user-facing
- Add notes about the fix
Output Report
Fix Implementation Summary
GitHub Issue #$ARGUMENTS: [Brief title]
Issue URL: [GitHub issue URL]
Root Cause (from RCA):
[One-line summary of root cause]
Changes Made
Files Modified:
-
[file-path]
- Change: [What was changed]
- Lines: [Line numbers]
-
[file-path]
- Change: [What was changed]
- Lines: [Line numbers]
Tests Added
Test Files Created/Modified:
- [test-file-path]
- Test cases: [List test functions added]
Test Coverage:
- ✅ Fix verification test
- ✅ Edge case tests
- ✅ Regression prevention tests
Validation Results
bash
# Linter output
[Show lint results]
# Type check output
[Show type check results]
# Test output
[Show test results - all passing]
Verification
Manual Testing:
- ✅ Followed reproduction steps - issue resolved
- ✅ Tested edge cases - all pass
- ✅ No new issues introduced
- ✅ Original functionality preserved
Deviations from the RCA
[None — implemented as specified | List each deviation from the RCA + why]
Files Summary
Total Changes:
- X files modified
- Y files created (tests)
- Z lines added
- W lines removed
Ready for Commit
All changes complete and validated. Ready for the
skill.
Suggested commit message:
fix(scope): resolve GitHub issue #$ARGUMENTS - [brief description]
[Summary of what was fixed and how]
Fixes #$ARGUMENTS
Note: Using
in the commit message will automatically close the GitHub issue when merged to the default branch.
Optional: Update GitHub Issue
Add implementation comment to issue:
bash
gh issue comment $ARGUMENTS --body "Fix implemented in commit [commit-hash]. Ready for review."
Update issue labels (if needed):
bash
gh issue edit $ARGUMENTS --add-label "fixed" --remove-label "bug"
Close the issue (if not using auto-close via commit message):
bash
gh issue close $ARGUMENTS --comment "Fixed and merged."
Notes
- If the RCA document is missing or incomplete, request it be created first with the skill for issue #$ARGUMENTS
- If you discover the RCA analysis was incorrect, document findings and update the RCA
- If additional issues are found during implementation, note them for separate GitHub issues and RCAs
- Follow project coding standards exactly
- Ensure all validation passes before declaring complete
- The commit message will link the commit to the GitHub issue