A reported bug first gets a regression test that demonstrably shows it red, then the fix, until that same test turns green.
Case study in full
Synthetic example — illustrative magnitudes, not a measurement.
Stack profile: php-laravel-13 · Data origin: Synthetic example, not a reference run. · Measurement period: —
A reproducible bug has been reported, but no test captures it permanently. Without such a test, the same bug can return unnoticed as soon as the affected code changes again.
Out of scope — not automated: Not automated: classifying the bug as reproducible and relevant remains a human decision, as does approving the fix and its counter-check before the merge.
Prerequisites
A reproducible bug report described in the tracker.
A stack profile with the project's existing test commands.
Guardrails that record a test obligation for bug fixes.
Approval that the fix including a regression test may be carried out.
Workflow
The bug report from the tracker is turned into a plan with a reproduction step.
A regression test is added that demonstrably shows the bug as red before the fix.
The actual fix is implemented until that same test turns green.
The counter-check runs against the full affected test suite, not just the new test.
The result goes out as a pull request to the repository, referencing the bug report.
Result artifacts
The new regression test stays part of the test suite and guards against recurrence.
Before/after status of the test traceable in the commit history.
One pull request referencing the original bug report.
A note on whether related code paths were checked for the same bug.
Every example on this page was created for illustration. It is not a promise about the duration, quality or cost of a future run of your own — your own figures appear in the cockpit after logging in, within your own tenant context.
