Terms in this guide: Acceptance criteria · Verification
Recover from unclear scope, failing checks, and a handoff with missing evidence.
When the change keeps growing
Restate the original acceptance criteria and compare each proposed edit with them. Separate required fixes from unrelated improvements. Ask for a list of changed behaviors and the reason each is necessary.
If the brief was too broad, choose the smallest useful outcome that can be reviewed independently. Preserve the remaining ideas as explicit follow-ups rather than silently expanding the current task.
When checks fail repeatedly
Read the first meaningful failure, identify the layer it belongs to, and verify the prerequisites. An environment error, a broken assertion, and a formatting violation are different problems. Changing the implementation to silence an environment error can introduce a real regression.
Record the failing command and the relevant output. After a correction, repeat that check before broadening validation. Avoid reporting the entire suite as passed when only a narrower command completed.
When the result looks right but behaves wrong
Exercise the real user journey, not just the initial screen. Submit the filter, clear it, open a result, follow the author link, and return. On a narrow screen, check the same interactions again. A screenshot cannot prove that controls work.
Choose one failure case that matters to the feature. An empty search result should explain what happened and offer a reset. A generator should reject missing required input and produce text you can actually copy.
When the handoff is too vague
Request a concrete statement of changed behavior, files or routes affected, checks run, observed results, and known limits. If the evidence is missing, keep the result open for review rather than treating confident wording as completion.
Progress stays in this browser. No account needed.
Updates and upgrade guidance
- Learning context added
Added prerequisites, a suggested practice estimate, expected output, and connected definitions. The article procedure was not independently re-evaluated in this change.
What to do: Use the opening checklist to prepare. No software update is required for this editorial change.
This log starts with the first recorded review; it is not a reconstruction of earlier revisions.