agentleFS
DenchHQDenchHQ/ironclaw/skills/gstack/investigate/SKILL.md

investigate

Skill1.7k starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Systematic root-cause debugging. Four phases: investigate, analyze, hypothesize, implement. Iron Law: no fixes without root cause investigation first. Use when debugging errors, unexpected behavior, or troubleshooting.

128 other projects use a version of this, 6 of them edited.

Trending

Quiet since February.thin dataabout the whole repository

Dec 2025: 0 mentionsJan 2026: 0 mentionsFeb 2026: 1 mentionMar 2026: 0 mentionsApr 2026: 0 mentionsMay 2026: 0 mentionsJun 2026: 0 mentionsJul 2026: 0 mentionsAug 2026: 0 mentionsSep 2026: 0 mentionsOct 2026: 0 mentionsNov 2026: 0 mentions
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the DenchHQ/ironclaw repository that our weekly crawl found: only 1 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Most recently taken up by

Who's talking about DenchHQ/ironclaw

The biggest 1 of 1 mention linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

Used with

Projects with it also use pair-agent, plan-devex-review and 9 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • seek888Skill

    pair-agent

    Pair a remote AI agent with your browser. One command generates a setup key and prints instructions the other agent can follow to connect. Works with OpenClaw, Hermes, Codex, Cursor, or any agent that can make HTTP requests. The remote agent gets its own tab with scoped access (read+write by default, admin on request). Use when asked to "pair agent", "connect agent", "share browser", "remote browser", "let another agent use my browser", or "give browser access". (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "pair agent", "connect agent", "share my browser", "remote browser access".

    Also in 10 projects that use this

  • seek888Skill

    plan-devex-review

    Interactive developer experience plan review. Explores developer personas, benchmarks against competitors, designs magical moments, and traces friction points before scoring. Three modes: DX EXPANSION (competitive advantage), DX POLISH (bulletproof every touchpoint), DX TRIAGE (critical gaps only). Use when asked to "DX review", "developer experience audit", "devex review", or "API design review". Proactively suggest when the user has a plan for developer-facing products (APIs, CLIs, SDKs, libraries, platforms, docs). (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "dx review", "developer experience review", "devex review", "devex audit", "API design review", "onboarding review".

    Also in 13 projects that use this

  • ShreyRaviSkill

    landing-report

    Read-only queue dashboard for workspace-aware ship. Shows which VERSION slots are currently claimed by open PRs, which sibling Conductor workspaces have WIP work likely to ship soon, and what slot /ship would pick next. No mutations — just a snapshot. Use when asked to "landing report", "what's in the queue", "show me open PRs", or "which version do I claim next". (gstack)

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • ayudaySkill

    setup-deploy

    Configure deployment settings for /land-and-deploy. Detects your deploy platform (Fly.io, Render, Vercel, Netlify, Heroku, GitHub Actions, custom), production URL, health check endpoints, and deploy status commands. Writes the configuration to CLAUDE.md so all future deploys are automatic. Use when: "setup deploy", "configure deployment", "set up land-and-deploy", "how do I deploy with gstack", "add deploy config".

    Also in 14 projects that use this

  • ayudaySkill

    cso

    Chief Security Officer mode. Performs OWASP Top 10 audit, STRIDE threat modeling, attack surface analysis, auth flow verification, secret detection, dependency CVE scanning, supply chain risk assessment, and data classification review. Use when: "security audit", "threat model", "pentest review", "OWASP", "CSO review".

    Also in 17 projects that use this

  • GeiserXSkill

    docs-loop

    Use when the user asks to audit docs, check documentation for stale claims, or verify docs against the code.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +1 more from seek888

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 114 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Collect symptoms: Read error messages, stack traces, reproduction steps.

    line 23
  2. Distinctive:

    Check if this bug matches a known pattern:

    line 43
  3. Distinctive:

    Before writing ANY fix, verify your hypothesis.

    line 60
  4. Distinctive:

    Confirm: Add a temporary log or assertion at the suspected root cause.

    line 62
  5. Distinctive:

    3-strike rule: If 3 hypotheses fail, STOP.

    line 66
  6. Distinctive:

    Run the full test suite: No regressions.

    line 86
  7. Distinctive:

    Never say "this should fix it.": Verify and prove it.

    line 113

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 114 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Systematic Debugging — Find the Root Cause

Iron Law: NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST.

Fixing symptoms creates whack-a-mole debugging. Every fix that doesn't address root cause makes the next bug harder to find.

Related skills: review | qa | careful


Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

Gather context before forming any hypothesis.

  1. Collect symptoms: Read error messages, stack traces, reproduction steps. If not enough context, ask ONE question at a time.
  2. Read the code: Trace the code path from symptom to potential cause.
  3. Check recent changes:

    git log --oneline -20 -- <affected-files>

    Was this working before? What changed? A regression means the root cause is in the diff.

  4. Reproduce: Can you trigger the bug deterministically? If not, gather more evidence.

Output: "Root cause hypothesis: ..." — a specific, testable claim about what is wrong and why.


Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

Check if this bug matches a known pattern:

PatternSignatureWhere to look
Race conditionIntermittent, timing-dependentConcurrent access to shared state
Nil/null propagationTypeError, undefined is not a functionMissing guards on optional values
State corruptionInconsistent data, partial updatesTransactions, callbacks, hooks
Integration failureTimeout, unexpected responseExternal API calls, service boundaries
Configuration driftWorks locally, fails in stagingEnv vars, feature flags, DB state
Stale cacheShows old data, fixes on cache clearRedis, CDN, browser cache

Also check TODOS.md for related known issues and git log for prior fixes in the same area — recurring bugs in the same files are an architectural smell.


Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing

Before writing ANY fix, verify your hypothesis.

  1. Confirm: Add a temporary log or assertion at the suspected root cause. Reproduce. Does evidence match?
  2. If wrong: Return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess.
  3. 3-strike rule: If 3 hypotheses fail, STOP. Ask the user:
    • A) Continue investigating with a new hypothesis
    • B) Escalate for human review
    • C) Add logging and catch it next time

Red flags — slow down:

  • "Quick fix for now" — there is no "for now." Fix it right or escalate.
  • Proposing a fix before tracing data flow — you're guessing.
  • Each fix reveals a new problem elsewhere — wrong layer, not wrong code.

Phase 4: Implementation

Once root cause is confirmed:

  1. Fix the root cause, not the symptom. Smallest change that eliminates the actual problem.
  2. Minimal diff. Fewest files, fewest lines. Resist refactoring adjacent code.
  3. Write a regression test that fails without the fix and passes with it.
  4. Run the full test suite. No regressions.
  5. If fix touches >5 files: Flag the blast radius and ask before proceeding.

Phase 5: Verification & Report

Reproduce the original bug and confirm it's fixed. This is not optional.

DEBUG REPORT
════════════════════════════════════════
Symptom:         [what the user observed]
Root cause:      [what was actually wrong]
Fix:             [what was changed, file:line]
Evidence:        [test output showing fix works]
Regression test: [file:line of the new test]
Status:          DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED
════════════════════════════════════════

Important Rules

  • 3+ failed fix attempts → STOP and question the architecture.
  • Never apply a fix you cannot verify.
  • Never say "this should fix it." Verify and prove it.
  • If fix touches >5 files → ask first.

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.