Before and after bug fix video: the reviewer's template

A bug fix pull request claims one thing: it was broken, and now it is not. The usual proof is a paragraph and a screenshot, so the broken part is taken on trust. Two short videos of the same path prove both. A description is the author's memory. A video shows the bug was real, the fix works on the user's path, and what else changed on screen. Here is the template. The issue and the path, the before from main, the after from the branch, one sentence each, and what is not covered. Five rules make it work. Same path, both halves. Record the before first, before you touch the code. Stop on each state long enough to read it. Here is the worked example, a pricing page. The before half opens it and stops on a grey Submit button, priced at two hundred and forty dollars. The after half, from the branch, walks the same page and stops on a blue Upgrade to Pro button at twenty four dollars. Your coding agent can record both halves: the before and after skill, run before the fix and after it, with the same issue URL. One link plays both. It needs Node, a headless browser, and an app it can reach. A local dev server is fine. Nothing is added to your tracked files. When a pair lands, check four things first. Is it the real bug? The same path? The asked-for state? Did anything else change? If all four hold, the diff review is about how the fix is written, not whether it works. The full template is on the Vidmatic blog.