Ambient new Bugfix Workspace

[sallyom]

Overview

BugFix Workspace automates the bug fixing process through two distinct AI sessions:

1. Bug Review - Claude analyzes the issue and creates a detailed assessment with implementation plan
2. Bug Implementation - Claude implements the fix following the review assessment

All analysis is posted to GitHub as concise comments with detailed reports in GitHub Gists, keeping issue threads clean while preserving full context.

Key Features

• Two-phase workflow: Separate review and implementation sessions for better quality control
• GitHub Integration: Works directly with GitHub Issues and creates PRs automatically
• Gist-based reports: Detailed analysis posted to GitHub Gists, short summaries in issue comments
• Configurable: Base branch, feature branch, LLM settings (model, temperature, tokens)
• Multi-repo support: Can work across multiple repositories simultaneously
• Session runtime: Configurable timeout (default: 4 hours) for long-running fixes

Quick Start

1. Create BugFix Workflow

From GitHub Issue:

Implementation Repository URL: https://github.com/org/repo
Base Branch: main
Feature Branch Name: bugfix/gh-123
GitHub Issue URL: https://github.com/org/repo/issues/123

From Text Description:

• Provide bug symptoms, reproduction steps, expected/actual behavior
• System creates GitHub Issue automatically

2. Run Bug Review Session

• Click "Create Session" → Select "Bug Review"
• Claude analyzes the bug and creates implementation plan
• Posts Gist with detailed assessment
• Adds short summary comment to GitHub Issue with Gist link

3. Run Implementation Session

• Click "Create Session" → Select "Bug Implementation"
• Claude fetches the review Gist for context
• Implements the fix on feature branch
• Posts implementation summary with PR instructions

4. Review & Merge

• Review the feature branch locally or on GitHub
• Create PR if not auto-created
• Merge when ready

What Happens Under the Hood

Bug Review Session

1. Clones base branch (e.g., main)
2. Analyzes code and GitHub Issue
3. Creates detailed assessment (root cause, affected components, fix strategy)
4. Uploads assessment to GitHub Gist (public, under your account)
5. Posts short summary comment to Issue with Gist link
6. Stores Gist URL in workflow metadata

Bug Implementation Session

1. Clones base branch (starts fresh)
2. Fetches bug-review Gist content for full context
3. Implements fix following the assessment strategy
4. Creates feature branch from base + changes
5. Pushes to remote feature branch
6. Posts implementation summary with PR creation instructions
7. Uploads detailed implementation report to Gist

Configuration Options

Session Settings

• Interactive Mode: Chat with Claude during session (default: batch mode)
• Auto-push: Automatically push changes (default: enabled)
• LLM Settings:
  • Model: claude-sonnet-4-20250514 (default)
  • Temperature: 0.7 (default)
  • Max Tokens: 4000 (default)

Workflow Settings

• Base Branch: Branch to start from (e.g., main, develop)
• Feature Branch: Target branch for fixes (e.g., bugfix/gh-123)
• Session Runtime: Max duration per session (default: 4 hours, configurable at cluster level)

Requirements

GitHub Personal Access Token (PAT)

Your PAT must have these scopes:

• ✅ repo
• ✅ gist - Create and read gists

[sallyom]

Example Workflow

Issue: #210
"ACP gets confused when making workspace for repo with existing specs"

Bug Review Session (210-bug-review-1762118289):

• Analyzed 8KB of context
• Posted Gist: https://gist.github.com/sallyom/8913240682805a4682633598ad58f9f9
• GitHub comment: Short summary with Gist link

Implementation Session (210-bug-implement-fix-1762118456):

• Fetched bug-review Gist for full context
• Implemented fix on bugfix/gh-210 branch
• Posted Gist: https://gist.github.com/sallyom/adb58413309a9e4917f4442fbc73a3d3
• GitHub comment: Summary with PR creation steps
  

Result: Clean GitHub Issue thread, comprehensive documentation in Gists, working fix ready for review.

[Daniel-Warner-X]

@sallyom is there a difference between a 'workspace' and a 'workflow'? They seem to be used interchangeably in this overview.

[sallyom]

@sallyom is there a difference between a 'workspace' and a 'workflow'? They seem to be used interchangeably in this overview.

There is no difference - we changed the user-facing text to "Workspace" but didn't update the backend code. We need to fix this, but Workspace == Workflow & all the code references "workflow"

[github-actions]

Comprehensive Code Review: BugFix Workspace Feature

Executive Summary

Overall Assessment: This is a well-structured, high-quality implementation ✅

The PR adds 11,157 lines across 83 files, implementing a complete AI-powered bug fixing workflow. The code demonstrates excellent adherence to CLAUDE.md guidelines with only minor optimization opportunities.

Key Strengths:

• ✅ Excellent type safety (no any types in TypeScript)
• ✅ Proper error handling throughout
• ✅ Strong security practices (token redaction, RBAC, input validation)
• ✅ Comprehensive integration test structure
• ✅ Clean separation of concerns
• ✅ Proper use of Shadcn UI components
• ✅ React Query for all data operations

Issues Found:

• 🟡 2-3 minor optimization opportunities (idempotency, logging)
• No critical bugs or security issues

---

1. Code Quality & Best Practices - EXCELLENT ✅

Backend (Go) Highlights

✅ Proper User Token Authentication (components/backend/handlers/bugfix/create.go:87-90)

reqK8s, reqDyn := GetK8sClientsForRequest(c)
if reqK8s == nil || reqDyn == nil {
    c.JSON(http.StatusUnauthorized, gin.H{"error": "Missing or invalid user token"})
    return
}

Correctly follows CLAUDE.md pattern for user-scoped clients.

✅ Type-Safe Unstructured Access (components/backend/crd/bugfix.go:115-127)

spec, found, _ := unstructured.NestedMap(obj.Object, "spec")
if found {
    // Handle both int64 and float64 for JSON unmarshaling
    if val, ok := spec["githubIssueNumber"].(int64); ok {
        workflow.GithubIssueNumber = int(val)
    } else if val, ok := spec["githubIssueNumber"].(float64); ok {
        workflow.GithubIssueNumber = int(val)
    }
}

Excellent handling of JSON number types with graceful degradation.

✅ Comprehensive Input Validation (components/backend/handlers/bugfix/create.go:28-62)

const (
    MaxTitleLength             = 200
    MaxSymptomsLength          = 10000
    MaxReproductionStepsLength = 10000
)

var validBranchNameRegex = regexp.MustCompile(`^[a-zA-Z0-9/_.-]+$`)

func validateBranchName(branchName string) error {
    if !validBranchNameRegex.MatchString(branchName) {
        return fmt.Errorf("branch name contains invalid characters")
    }
    if strings.Contains(branchName, "..") || strings.Contains(branchName, "//") {
        return fmt.Errorf("branch name cannot contain '..' or '//'")
    }
    return nil
}

Proper protection against path traversal and DoS attacks.

Frontend (TypeScript) Highlights

✅ Zero any Types
All bugfix-related files use proper TypeScript types with no any annotations.

✅ Proper Type Definitions (components/frontend/src/services/api/bugfix.ts:11-32)

export interface BugFixWorkflow {
  id: string;
  githubIssueNumber: number;
  githubIssueURL: string;
  title: string;
  description?: string;
  branchName: string;
  phase: 'Initializing' | 'Ready';
  // ...
}

Proper string literal unions and optional properties.

✅ React Query Integration (components/frontend/src/app/projects/[name]/bugfix/[id]/page.tsx:62-72)

const { data: workflow, isLoading: workflowLoading } = useQuery({
  queryKey: ['bugfix-workflow', projectName, workflowId],
  queryFn: () => bugfixApi.getBugFixWorkflow(projectName, workflowId),
  enabled: !!projectName && !!workflowId,
});

Proper query key structure and conditional enabling.

✅ Type-Safe Error Handling (components/frontend/src/components/workspaces/bugfix/SessionSelector.tsx:109-142)

onError: (error: unknown) => {
  if (error && typeof error === 'object' && 'response' in error) {
    const axiosError = error as { response?: { status?: number; data?: unknown } };
    if (axiosError.response?.status === 409) {
      setPRConflict({ ... });
      return;
    }
  }
  errorToast(message);
}

---

2. Security Analysis - EXCELLENT ✅

✅ Token Handling

• Authorization headers never logged (custom logger prevents this)
• Token length logged, not content: log.Printf("tokenLen=%d", len(token))
• Clear safety documentation in code comments

✅ Authorization

• User tokens required for all API endpoints
• Webhook service account usage properly justified and documented
• Clear RBAC permission documentation (components/backend/handlers/bugfix/session_webhook.go:829-842)

✅ Input Validation

• Branch name sanitization with regex validation
• Path traversal protection
• Size limits on all text inputs
• Strict URL validation with regex patterns

✅ Secrets Management

• GitHub tokens from K8s secrets, not code
• Jira credentials from secrets with validation

---

3. Minor Optimization Opportunities

🟡 Idempotency Check Placement

Location: components/backend/handlers/bugfix/session_webhook.go:123-131, 313-320

Issue: Idempotency checks happen AFTER fetching the workflow, not at the start.

Impact: Redundant GitHub API calls on duplicate webhook deliveries.

Recommendation:

// Move idempotency check earlier:
workflow, err := crd.GetProjectBugFixWorkflowCR(reqDyn, project, workflowID)
if err != nil || workflow == nil {
    // error handling
}

// Check idempotency FIRST
if workflow.Annotations != nil {
    if _, exists := workflow.Annotations["bug-review-comment-id"]; exists {
        c.JSON(http.StatusOK, gin.H{"status": "already_processed"})
        return
    }
}
// Continue with expensive operations...

🟡 Gist Content UTF-8 Safety

Location: components/backend/handlers/bugfix/session_webhook.go:815-827

Issue: Truncation at exact byte boundary could split UTF-8 sequences.

Recommendation: Use strings.ToValidUTF8() after truncation to ensure valid UTF-8.

🟡 Logging Consistency

Location: components/backend/handlers/bugfix/jira_sync.go:169-178

Issue: Debug logging with fmt.Printf instead of log.Printf.

Recommendation: Use log.Printf for consistency with rest of codebase.

---

4. Test Coverage - EXCELLENT STRUCTURE ✅

Integration Tests:

• ✅ bug_review_session_test.go
• ✅ bug_implement_fix_session_test.go
• ✅ jira_sync_test.go
• ✅ create_from_text_test.go

All tests have clear documentation with numbered steps and proper t.Skip() usage.

Unit Tests:

• ✅ handlers_test.go (291 lines)

Frontend Tests:

• ✅ SessionSelector.test.tsx (248 lines)
• ✅ JiraSyncButton.test.tsx (247 lines)
• ✅ WorkspaceCreator.test.tsx (158 lines)

Recommendation: Consider implementing 1-2 critical path integration tests before GA.

---

5. Architecture & Design - EXCELLENT ✅

Backend Organization:

backend/handlers/bugfix/
├── create.go          # Workflow creation
├── sessions.go        # Session management
├── session_webhook.go # Webhook handlers
├── jira_sync.go       # Jira integration
├── status.go          # Status queries
└── delete.go          # Cleanup

Clean separation by functionality with single responsibility.

Frontend Organization:

src/app/projects/[name]/bugfix/[id]/
├── page.tsx                  # Main page
├── bugfix-header.tsx         # Page-specific
└── bugfix-sessions-table.tsx # Page-specific

src/components/workspaces/bugfix/
├── BugTimeline.tsx       # Reusable
└── SessionSelector.tsx   # Reusable

Proper component colocation following DESIGN_GUIDELINES.md.

---

6. Documentation - GOOD ✅

• ✅ Clear function comments with endpoint documentation
• ✅ RBAC permissions documented with justification
• ✅ Comprehensive user guide (BUGFIX_WORKSPACE.md)
• ✅ Quick start section
• ✅ Configuration options documented

Minor suggestion: Add JSDoc comments to frontend components for better IDE support.

---

Summary & Recommendation

APPROVE WITH MINOR OPTIMIZATIONS ✅

This is a production-ready implementation that demonstrates:

• Strong understanding of codebase patterns
• Excellent TypeScript and Go skills
• Security-conscious development
• Clean architecture and separation of concerns

Suggested merge strategy:

1. (Optional) Address 2-3 minor optimizations above
2. Merge to main
3. Create follow-up issues for pagination and integration test implementation

Congratulations on a well-executed feature! 🎉

---

Review generated using Claude Code with comprehensive analysis of all 83 changed files