agentleFS
CsHengCsHeng/agent-skills/skills/runtime-diagnosis/SKILL.md

runtime-diagnosis

Skill3 starsChanged 8 days agoMITView on GitHub

Diagnose live system behavior that diverges from expected state across component boundaries: network, containers, GitOps state, secrets, or automation. Not for new infrastructure design, which belongs to design-change, or routine config edits with a settled approach.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Follow the data path, control path, identity, or state boundary that could explain the mismatch.

    line 21
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify affected behavior with existing observation points, preferring live runtime evidence when hardware, services, routers, or containers …

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    Use backup, retained state, an HA peer, VRRP, or an old release as recovery surfaces.

    line 29
  4. Very specific:

    Use stop-and-diagnose when continued mutation could compound uncertainty but restoring old state is not proven safer.

    line 30
  5. Very specific:

    Use guarded-rollback for an explicit, observed hazard where rollback is safer than forward repair and its target and verification are …

    line 31

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Runtime Diagnosis

Diagnose operational systems by separating desired state, actual state, data path, control path, and ownership boundaries.

Use This Skill When

  • live system behavior diverges from expected state and the cause is unknown
  • the failure crosses component boundaries (network, containers, GitOps/IaC, secrets, automation)
  • existing domain skills do not own the narrow cause

New infrastructure design or access control design belongs to design-change. Routine configuration edits with a settled owner use implement-change. In-process error handling uses error-patterns.

Workflow

  1. Identify the target and the mismatch between desired and observed behavior using already available facts.
  2. Follow the data path, control path, identity, or state boundary that could explain the mismatch. When a cross-boundary failure needs candidate observation points, read references/analysis-axes.md.
  3. Resolve uncertainty that could change the repair or make the next operation unsafe. Once the cause and authorized fix are clear, implement or hand off that fix.
  4. Verify affected behavior with existing observation points, preferring live runtime evidence when hardware, services, routers, or containers are available. Add instrumentation for an actual diagnosis gap, and include recovery when the operation exposes the corresponding risk.

Recovery Selection

Calibrate recovery to state value, blast radius, recoverability, and control cost. Environment classification, direct cutover, and protection of retained slices follow references/replacement-and-cutover.md in development-standards; reuse of recovery evidence follows references/oracle-selection.md in skills-routing; recovery modes and authority follow implement-change (Recovery).

  • Use backup, retained state, an HA peer, VRRP, or an old release as recovery surfaces; rollback needs the guarded-rollback criteria below.
  • Use stop-and-diagnose when continued mutation could compound uncertainty but restoring old state is not proven safer.
  • Use guarded-rollback for an explicit, observed hazard where rollback is safer than forward repair and its target and verification are already tested. Hazard classes: management-connectivity loss, a routing or control-plane cycle, writer or quorum exclusivity loss, irreversible data-safety risk.
  • Move to planning or design when evidence shows an unresolved goal, boundary, or ordering decision.

Output

When this skill owns a troubleshooting response, lead with the most likely boundary or state mismatch. Name the exact observation point for each claim and mark inferred causes as inferred. Include the selected recovery policy when a change affects access, routing, secrets, important retained state, shared hosts, or production, and name rollback when the guarded-rollback criteria apply.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.