n8n:reproduce-bug
- Repo stars 190,957
- Author updated Live
- Author repo n8n
- Domain
- Engineering
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @n8n-io · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Guided setup
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- macOS · Linux · Windows
- Runtime requirements
- Node.js
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Shell exec
- Network behavior
- External requests
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools，默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: n8n:reproduce-bug
description: Reproduce a bug from a Linear ticket with a failing test. Expects the full ticket context (title…
category: engineering
runtime: Node.js
---
# n8n:reproduce-bug output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Reproduce a bug from a Linear ticket with a failing test. Expects the full ticket context (title, description, comments) to be provided as input. Given a Linear ticket context ($ARGUMENTS), systematically reproduce the bug makes outbound network calls; runs on Node.js. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Step 1: Parse Signals / Step 2: Route to Test Strategy / Step 3: Locate Source Files” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Reproduce a bug from a Linear ticket with a failing test. Expects the full ticket context (title, description, comments) to be provided as input. Given a Linear ticket context ($ARGUMENTS), systematically reproduce the bug makes outbound network calls; runs on Node.js. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Step 1: Parse Signals / Step 2: Route to Test Strategy / Step 3: Locate Source Files” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; may access external network resources; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; may access external network resources; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. Choose the trigger
The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Provide inputs and boundaries
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands.
Validate with a small run
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Step 1: Parse Signals / Step 2: Route to Test Strategy / Step 3: Locate Source Files”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Review before delivery
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: n8n:reproduce-bug
description: Reproduce a bug from a Linear ticket with a failing test. Expects the full ticket context (title…
category: engineering
source: n8n-io/n8n
---
# n8n:reproduce-bug
## When to use
- Reproduce a bug from a Linear ticket with a failing test. Expects the full ticket context (title, description, comment…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Step 1: Parse Signals / Step 2: Route to Test Strategy / Step 3: Locate Source Files” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; may access external network resources; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. Evidence boundary and execution chain
The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "n8n:reproduce-bug" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Step 1: Parse Signals / Step 2: Route to Test Strategy / Step 3: Locate Source Files
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> Node.js | read files, write/modify files, run shell commands | may access external network resources
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
}Bug Reproduction Framework
Given a Linear ticket context ($ARGUMENTS), systematically reproduce the bug with a failing regression test.
Step 1: Parse Signals
Extract the following from the provided ticket context:
- Error message / stack trace (if provided)
- Reproduction steps (if provided)
- Workflow JSON (if attached)
- Affected area (node, execution engine, editor, API, config, etc.)
- Version where it broke / last working version
Step 2: Route to Test Strategy
Based on the affected area, pick the test layer and pattern:
| Area | Test Layer | Pattern | Key Location |
|---|---|---|---|
| Node operation | Jest unit | NodeTestHarness + nock | packages/nodes-base/nodes/*/test/ |
| Node credential | Jest unit | jest-mock-extended | packages/nodes-base/nodes/*/test/ |
| Trigger webhook | Jest unit | mock IHookFunctions + jest.mock GenericFunctions | packages/nodes-base/nodes/*/test/ |
| Binary data | Jest unit | NodeTestHarness assertBinaryData | packages/core/nodes-testing/ |
| Execution engine | Jest integration | WorkflowRunner + DI container | packages/cli/src/__tests__/ |
| CLI / API | Jest integration | setupTestServer + supertest | packages/cli/test/integration/ |
| Config | Jest unit | GlobalConfig + Container | packages/@n8n/config/src/__tests__/ |
| Editor UI | Vitest | Vue Test Utils + Pinia | packages/frontend/editor-ui/src/**/__tests__/ |
| E2E / Canvas | Playwright | Test containers + composables | packages/testing/playwright/ |
Step 3: Locate Source Files
Find the source code for the affected area:
- Search for the node/service/component mentioned in the ticket
- Find the GenericFunctions file (common bug location for nodes)
- Check for existing test files in the same area
- Look at recent git history on affected files (
git log --oneline -10 -- <path>)
Step 4: Trace the Code Path
Read the source code and trace the execution path that triggers the bug:
- Follow the call chain from entry point to the failure
- Identify the specific line(s) where the bug manifests
- Note any error handling (or lack thereof) around the bug
Step 5: Form Hypothesis
State a clear, testable hypothesis:
- "When [input/condition], the code does [wrong thing] because [root cause]"
- Identify the exact line(s) that need to change
- Predict what the test output will show
Step 6: Find Test Patterns
Look for existing tests in the same area:
- Check
test/directories near the affected code - Identify which mock/setup patterns they use
- Use the same patterns for consistency
- If no tests exist, find the closest similar node/service tests as a template
Step 7: Write Failing Test
Write a regression test that:
- Uses the patterns found in Step 6
- Targets the specific hypothesis from Step 5
- Includes a comment referencing the ticket ID
- Asserts the CORRECT behavior (test will fail on current code)
- Also includes a "happy path" test to prove the setup works
Step 8: Run and Score
Run the test from the package directory (e.g., cd packages/nodes-base && pnpm test <file>).
Classify the result:
| Confidence | Criteria | Output |
|---|---|---|
| CONFIRMED | Test fails consistently, failure matches hypothesis | Reproduction Report |
| LIKELY | Test fails but failure mode differs slightly | Report + caveat |
| UNCONFIRMED | Cannot trigger the failure | Report: what was tried |
| SKIPPED | Hit a hard bailout trigger | Report: why skipped |
| ALREADY_FIXED | Bug no longer reproduces on current code | Report: when fixed |
Step 9: Iterate or Bail
If UNCONFIRMED after first attempt:
- Revisit hypothesis — re-read the code path
- Try a different test approach or layer
- Maximum 3 attempts before declaring UNCONFIRMED
Hard bailout triggers (stop immediately):
- Requires real third-party API credentials
- Race condition / timing-dependent
- Requires specific cloud/enterprise infrastructure
- Requires manual UI interaction that can't be scripted
Output: Reproduction Report
Present findings in this format:
Ticket: [ID] — [title] Confidence: [CONFIRMED | LIKELY | UNCONFIRMED | SKIPPED | ALREADY_FIXED]
Root Cause
[1-2 sentences explaining the bug mechanism]
Location
| File | Lines | Issue |
|---|---|---|
path/to/file.ts |
XX-YY | Description of the problem |
Failing Test
path/to/test/file.test.ts — X/Y tests fail:
test name— [failure description]
Fix Hint
[Pseudocode or description of the fix approach]
Important
- DO NOT fix the bug — only reproduce it with a failing test
- Leave test files in place as evidence (don't commit unless asked)
- Run tests from the package directory (e.g.,
pushd packages/nodes-base && pnpm test <file> && popd) - Always redirect build output:
pnpm build > build.log 2>&1 - DO NOT look at existing fix PRs — the goal is to reproduce from signals alone
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review