VibeGuardWhen something breaks
A Lovable change broke another feature. What now?
You simplified project editing. Now a user with view-only access can delete a document in a test. Before asking for another broad change, turn that failure into a specific, repeatable regression report.
Confirm the regression with the same starting conditions
A regression means behavior that worked before no longer works as expected. Compare the current version with the last version known to work, using the same role, test data and configuration wherever possible.
The delete operation accepts a viewer account.
In the earlier version, the same test was rejected and the document remained intact. After the change, the operation succeeds. This is evidence from a controlled test, not a report of someone’s activity in production.
If you cannot reproduce the earlier result, keep the distinction clear: you have found a defect, but have not yet established when it was introduced. Check permissions, configuration and starting data before attributing the cause to a particular code change.
Keep the failing version away from customers
If the change has not been published, keep it out of the release while you investigate. If it is already live and creates a serious risk, assess restoring a known working version and limiting the affected action.
A code rollback does not necessarily undo database changes or restore deleted records. Check compatibility and the available backups before making that decision. Work with disposable records while reproducing the issue.
Use the code change to narrow the investigation
Review the difference between the two versions in GitHub. Focus first on code that handles the affected action: permission checks, shared components, request handlers and database access policies.
For the viewer example, look for a role check removed from a shared delete handler or an access policy changed during the edit. Those are hypotheses to test, not conclusions to assume. The visible button might be unchanged while the server accepts a request it used to reject.
- Is the failure limited to one role or workspace?
- Does it happen through the interface, a direct request, or both?
- Does the data change, or does only the interface report success?
- Which nearby workflows share the changed code?
Give Lovable a reproducible report
“It is still broken” leaves too many possibilities open. Describe the starting state, exact action and expected result, then name the working behavior the fix must preserve.
In the test workspace, sign in as a viewer and try to delete an existing document. The current version accepts the operation; the previous version rejected it. The expected result is a denied request with the document unchanged. Investigate the authorization for this operation and add a regression test. Preserve the owner’s ability to delete. Also verify that members of a different workspace cannot access the document.
Attach the tested versions and the relevant failure evidence. Exclude passwords, tokens and personal customer data. The report should help reproduce the defect without requiring access to a real customer account.
Verify the fix and preserve the rule
Rerun the original failing scenario after the fix. Then check an allowed action and the neighboring access boundary. For this example: the viewer is blocked, the owner can delete, and a member of another workspace cannot read or delete the document.
Keep those expectations in the regression suite, tied to the business rule they protect. If the product’s permission model changes intentionally, update the expected behavior explicitly instead of treating every new result as correct.
The result you want
A defect that can be reproduced, a fix that passes the same check and a scenario that remains available for the next release. That is more useful than a one-off “fixed” message.