Resolve Author Fix

Step 2B — Author the fix

No candidate PR exists, so you fix it yourself. Steps 2B.1–2B.5 below are the full author flow; then open a PR in Step 3.

2B.1 — Confirm the shared repro audit

Complete the shared repro audit before changing product code. Reuse its recorded behavioral baseline rather than trusting the recovered verdict or rerunning an unchanged audit. If the test, base, or relevant environment changes, repeat the audit. Ticket-only mode instead establishes its targeted fail→pass proof in 2B.4. The failure-quality checks below elaborate the shared requirement; they do not replace patch inspection or excuse the review path from the same audit.

It must fail because the buggy behavior is observed — a wrong value, an error toast, a traceback, a bad HTTP response, a missing/incorrect UI affordance.

It must not fail merely because it references something that does not exist yet — an AttributeError/ImportError on a symbol the fix would add, an element-not-found for UI the fix would introduce, a 404 on a route the fix would register. That is an existence-check, not a reproduction: it would go green the moment the symbol exists, regardless of whether the behavior is correct. If the test fails that way:

• Rewrite it into a behavioral assertion that exercises the real journey and asserts the correct behavior/value, and confirm the rewrite fails for the right reason before proceeding.
• Flag it loudly in your handoff (test_audit) so a reviewer knows the original repro test was an existence-check and you corrected it.

If the test PASSES on the unfixed tree, it may be stale or unreliable; do not assume main has fixed the bug. A recovered verdict is a statement about main AT REPRO TIME, not now. Verify the way repro-agent would: re-drive enough of the journey to confirm the behavior is genuinely correct on the current tree, and hunt for the fixing commit (git log on the code the evidence points at). When it is really fixed, do not manufacture work: stop with outcome nothing_to_fix, name the fixing commit in root_cause, and recommend closing the ticket in your prose summary. If the test passes but the journey still misbehaves, the test was too loose — treat it like the existence-check case above: rewrite it until it fails on the real, still-live behavior, and flag the rewrite in test_audit.

For a compound bug, do this for every facet whose verdict is reproduced. Facets already already_fixed need no transition (note them skipped). Record, per live facet, the exact fail reason — the "from" half of your fail→pass proof.

2B.2 — Root-cause

Apply resolve-investigate: match the reported path and configuration, check competing explanations, and find the historical rationale. State the supported cause before editing. If policy must change, distinguish that proposal from repairing an implementation defect and retain unresolved choices for PR review.

2B.3 — Implement the fix

Fix the root cause, not the symptom. Change the code the bug lives in, matching surrounding conventions, as small as the root cause allows. Do not touch the test to make it pass; the code must change to satisfy it.

2B.4 — Select permanent regression coverage

Choose which tests belong in the final PR. Search existing tests by behavior and fixture, and read the nearest scenarios. If one already drives the relevant setup and state transition, fold the missing assertions into it; parameterize configuration variants when useful. Apply this to recovered Repro tests too: archive the original, then consolidate its regression assertions into the existing scenario. Keep a separate test when a distinct ordering or boundary would make that extension misleading. Keep investigation history in evidence and test comments short. Reuse unchanged coverage when sufficient; there is no requirement for a new test file or both a new e2e and a smaller test.

When existing coverage is insufficient, start with an edit to the nearest compatible scenario: preserve its existing assertions and add the regression input, seed records, or missing assertion. Leave sufficient coverage unchanged. Needing richer data does not make its journey incompatible. Keep a separate scenario only for a concrete ordering, lifecycle, or isolation conflict; name that conflict and the nearest existing test in test_audit. Before final verification, compare the setups and consolidate any compatible duplication. Moving a reproduction into an existing file is not consolidation.

Each reported facet needs reliable coverage, not coverage at every layer. Keep the input and edge-case matrix at the lowest reliable layer. At a higher layer, use a representative regression input for each distinct boundary the lower tests cannot expose; do not replay the whole matrix there. A new helper does not automatically need direct unit tests when its real callers already exercise its contract. Retain a helper test only for behavior those caller checks miss. For every added layer, briefly identify the regression that would escape the other selected checks if that layer were omitted.

Retain an e2e when it protects a distinct production boundary that lower-level coverage would miss, and explain that boundary briefly in test_audit. Do not mock away the failure, skip configurations, or supply already-correct objects in place of testing serialization, startup, process, or browser wiring. For documentation/instruction-only changes, existing contract/bundle checks may suffice; do not add a standalone module of sentence assertions or fabricate a behavioral failure.

Preserve investigation-only reproduction source and logs before omitting a test introduced for this task from the final diff. Do not delete existing repository coverage just to reduce LOC. Stage evidence in .omnigent/repro-evidence/ with original paths, commands, exact tested revision, and results, or cite an intact CI repro baseline/bundle. This worktree-local directory alone does not survive worktree deletion. Record the retrieval location and retention status in test_audit:

• Under the compatible internal Resolve workflow, evidence is captured as repro-evidence/ inside the GitHub Actions artifact resolve-bundle-<run-id>. This includes ticket-only and skip_push runs; it needs no upstream Repro bundle. Record the workflow run URL, artifact name, and path within it. The workflow uploads after the session, so mark that upload pending until it is confirmed; a staged directory is not proof of a successful upload. Retrieval is subject to the artifact's retention period.
• For local or direct runs without that collector, copy the evidence to an authorized persistent location outside the disposable worktree, verify the copied files, and record its absolute path or retrievable artifact URL. In skip_push mode keep this local; do not publish evidence as a workaround. If no such destination is available, preserve the worktree and report the unresolved retention requirement instead of claiming a durable archive.

Keep this archive separate from the permanent tests. On retries, preserve the selection and retained evidence instead of reinstating the omitted source.

• Tests of the reported bug must fail on the unfixed code and pass with your fix — same fail→pass discipline. Checks of previously correct behavior may pass on both revisions, as the shared impact assessment explains.
• Cover the specific behavior the bug got wrong, plus the obvious adjacent edge cases the root cause implies — not just "the function runs."
• Put them where the repo keeps tests for that layer, following existing files' fixtures and structure. Do not invent a new harness.
• Name by the problem, never the ticket. Test files, test functions, fixtures, and any other identifier must describe the behavior — never embed an issue or ticket number (no test_omni_2812_*.py, no OMNI-2812/#4458 in symbol names or comments). Prefer the observable defect: e.g. test_mid_stream_error_surfaces_as_abort.py, not test_omni_2812_*. This applies to a reproduction test introduced by this task too — if its test_path has a ticket-numbered name or ticket references in code, rename it and strip the references as part of the fix. A reader six months from now shouldn't need to chase a ticket to know what the test guards. The bug link belongs in the PR body (Step 3.4), not in code. Reusing a pre-existing test does not require an unrelated rename or comment cleanup.