uat-reopen-intake
Use when a user rejects, challenges, or reopens a previously accepted UAT, acceptance, or review result in an AI-assisted delivery workflow.
SKILL.mdskills/uat-reopen-intake/SKILL.md
GitHubUAT Reopen Intake
Core Principle
When a user challenges an accepted result, the AI must not directly fix, directly re-accept, or silently widen the acceptance scope. It must first decide what failed, what evidence is missing, and who owns the smallest next action.
Required Inputs
- Original receipt or acceptance summary.
- User challenge or reopen reason.
- Evidence actually covered by the original receipt.
- Current failing signal, if any.
- Candidate owner or lane, if known.
Intake Flow
- Run
accepted_scope_recheck: list the route, surface, viewport, data, assertion level, fact source, and receipt identity that were actually covered. - Identify the
failed_gate_mincandidate: the smallest reproducible gate that contradicts the prior acceptance. - Classify
failure_type:missing_evidencescope_overclaimreal_regressionowner_boundary_unclearenvironment_or_harness_gapuser_expectation_delta
- Record
missing_evidence: what proof is required before any new acceptance claim. - Make
next_owner_decision: who should act next, and what exact gate they must satisfy.
Allowed Verdicts
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
reopen_required |
The challenge exposes a real gap in the prior acceptance scope. |
needs_failed_gate_min |
The challenge is plausible but lacks the smallest reproducible failing gate. |
needs_evidence |
The request needs more evidence before ownership or acceptance can be decided. |
reroute_owner |
The issue belongs to a different owner based on mechanism attribution. |
no_reopen_from_current_evidence |
Current evidence does not contradict the prior bounded receipt. |
Output Contract
verdict:
accepted_scope_recheck:
failed_gate_min_candidate:
failure_type:
missing_evidence:
next_owner_decision:
return_owner_on_fail:
must_not_claim:
remaining_risks:
Common Mistakes
- Treating a user challenge as permission to immediately patch code.
- Saying
acceptedagain without re-checking what was originally covered. - Using a broad complaint as proof that all related surfaces failed.
- Assigning owner based only on the file where code lives.
- Collapsing environment or harness gaps into product failure.
Stop Conditions
Stop and return needs_failed_gate_min or needs_evidence when the challenge lacks a reproducible signal, concrete scope, or source of truth. Do not continue into implementation until the intake decision is recorded.