Debug -1 score bug in fantasy league scoring app
Takeaway: I'd start next time by pointing straight at the scoring script and the malus/reserve substitution rule instead of letting the agent search broadly across all the JSON files first.
Takeaway: I'd start next time by pointing straight at the scoring script and the malus/reserve substitution rule instead of letting the agent search broadly across all the JSON files first.
Takeaway: I'd start the next session by naming the full scope up front — scraping, pricing, registration backend, and payments — since each one kept surfacing new hidden requirements the agent had to dig for.
Takeaway: Next time I'd front-load the specific files I already suspect matter (classifier.py, pipeline.py, entrypoint.py) to cut down on the exploratory grepping.
Takeaway: Next time I'd point the agent straight at the diff hunks instead of letting it re-derive context by grepping the whole repo for identifiers.
Takeaway: I'd keep this as a pure read-only exploration prompt next time too — being explicit that no files should be modified kept the agent from trying to 'helpfully' refactor anything while mapping the codebase.
Takeaway: Next time I'd ask upfront whether the data pipeline's file iteration order was already deterministic, since that pre-existing bug cost a whole extra round of investigation and fixes.
Takeaway: I'd open with the regolamento PDF next time instead of finding it halfway through — it settled several 'is this a bug or a feature' questions I burned turns guessing at from code alone.
Takeaway: Next time I'd ask upfront to check the scrape schedule against the actual tournament dates, since the day-1-only cron was the root cause of missing results.
Takeaway: Next time I'd lead with 'the malus is making everyone's score negative during the group stage, only show earned points until knockouts' since that was the change that actually mattered to users watching the live tournament.
Takeaway: Next time I'd open with the real ask upfront: check why the crawler workflow is failing AND write up how the failure/exit-code design works, since splitting it into two prompts cost a round of back-and-forth on what to document.
Takeaway: Next time I'd point the agent straight at the registration flow and the Apps Script backend since that's where the real bug was, rather than letting it scan the whole repo first.
Takeaway: I'd start the next session the same way — running Bugbot on the branch diff before merging — since it caught a real high-severity bug I'd have missed otherwise.
Takeaway: I'd start by asking for the whole docs/features setup in one go — the feature docs, the merge of new_features.md, the Pauperwave source research, and the status tracker README — instead of doing it in four separate prompts.
Takeaway: Next time I'd mention upfront that .cursorignore blocks the repo root, so the agent doesn't waste turns rediscovering that and has to fall back to fetching the public GitHub mirror.
Takeaway: I'd start by giving the agent a clearer scope for the first prompt, like just the database migration, instead of bundling database, crawler and frontend into one request, since this whole session was still exploration and planning.
Takeaway: Next time I'd start by asking it to check whether starttime actually reflects the league date at all, since that assumption caused the whole bug — that one question would have saved several rounds of grepping.
Takeaway: Next time I'd paste the exact regolamento rule text into the first prompt instead of describing it from memory, since the agent's first read of rule 7 was wrong and I had to correct it after it built and tested the opposite behavior.
Takeaway: Next time I'd specify up front that 'visual' decklist view means card images replacing the text list entirely, and that mobile touch/scroll behavior needs to work alongside swipe-to-navigate - that ambiguity cost several back-and-forth rounds.