agentleFS
FuDesign2008FuDesign2008/open-skills/skills/known-issue-research/SKILL.md

known-issue-research

Skill6 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

External-research routing for confirmed code problems: triage whether the root cause is internal / external / hybrid, run a known-issue quick search before deep root-causing (platform silent failures, nested host runtimes, no code-level suspects), and evaluate industry-wide hard limits. Delegates all WebSearch discipline to effective-web-research. Referenced by PDCA hosts via frontmatter dependencies; load during the technical-analysis stage. Do NOT use for competitor product-behavior, interaction-boundary, or mechanism observation (competitive-research).

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Run immediately after the problem's existence is confirmed.

    line 22
  2. Distinctive:

    When unsure, default to 🟢 internal-first (these workflows exist to change code.

    line 30
  3. Distinctive:

    No code-level suspects: call chain complete, parameters correct, logs show execution — yet it doesn't work at runtime.

    line 40
  4. Very specific:

    When the referring workflow is performance analysis (perf-optimize-workflow), treat §2 as a known performance-pattern quick search with …

    line 55

≈ “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

Known Issue Research

Internal shared skill for the technical-analysis stage of code-fixing workflows. Decides when a confirmed problem needs external web research before (or instead of) deeper code-level analysis, and how to act on the results.

Prerequisite check: this skill declares effective-web-research in frontmatter dependencies. On load, verify it is available; if missing, abort and print the install command (npx skills add FuDesign2008/open-skills -g). No silent fallback.

Step-number parameterization

This skill is shared by workflows with different step numbering. All jump targets below are written as placeholders — {impact-assessment step}, {root-cause step}, {upstream-eval step} — and the referencing workflow states its own numbering inline at the reference line (e.g. "jump to step 4"). Never hardcode a workflow's step numbers here.

1. Research routing triage

Run immediately after the problem's existence is confirmed. Decide which class the root cause most likely falls into — this adjusts the priority of later steps, never replaces them:

RouteSignalsEmphasis
🟢 Internal-firstAbout "our code/logic/conventions"; root cause suspected in this repoCode location first; quick search (§2) as optional fallback; root-cause analysis is the core
🔵 External-firstNamed third-party lib/framework/API + version; or "how to use / why / any known issue"; or any §2 trigger hits (platform silent failure / nested host / no code-level suspects)Quick search (§2) becomes the primary action — search known cases first
🟣 Hybrid (external-then-internal)External concept + internal object ("does the X lib we use have vulnerability Y", "apply pattern X to our code")§2 first to understand the concept externally, then internal root-cause analysis to apply it

When unsure, default to 🟢 internal-first (these workflows exist to change code; most root causes live in the repo).

Relation to effective-web-research Step 0: that triage decides whether a single search should go external; this one decides the whole problem's research composition. Complementary — consult its Step 0 when unsure.

2. Known-issue quick search

Triggers (any one; in 🔵/🟣 routing this is the primary action, in 🟢 an optional fallback before instrumenting code):

  • Platform/native component involved (Android WebView, iOS UIPickerView, browser API, OS-level control…) with a silent failure — no error, no crash, correct calls, completely unresponsive behavior.
  • Nested host runtime (React Native, Electron, Cordova, WebView-in-App…) while the frontend logic looks entirely correct.
  • No code-level suspects: call chain complete, parameters correct, logs show execution — yet it doesn't work at runtime.

Execute: WebSearch with "symptom keywords + platform/framework + year" across StackOverflow, GitHub Issues, official docs. Parallel action (mandatory when a named third-party lib/framework is involved or symptoms correlate strongly with platform-specific behavior): check the upstream dependency's Changelog / Release Notes / Issues for an already-fixed version — upgrading may be the simplest fix (hand off to the workflow's {upstream-eval step}, which delegates to upstream-dependency-debug).

Result handling:

OutcomeAction
✅ Known case found, root cause clearOutput the quick-search conclusion; jump to the {impact-assessment step}, skipping root-cause analysis
✅ Upstream fix version foundOutput the lead; proceed to the {upstream-eval step} to assess upgrade feasibility (a fixed-upstream lead is not yet a solution)
⚠️ Related discussion, root cause partly clearFeed findings into the {root-cause step} as reference
❌ Nothing foundSkip silently; continue to the {root-cause step}

2.1 Performance-pattern variant (for perf-optimize-workflow)

When the referring workflow is performance analysis (perf-optimize-workflow), treat §2 as a known performance-pattern quick search with these extra triggers (any one, before entering that workflow's hypothesis stage):

  • Anomaly located but cannot be classified into the workflow's known performance-pattern table
  • Suspected framework/library performance bug or limit (named framework + version)

Execute the same WebSearch discipline as §2, with query shape: symptom + framework/lib + version + year, preferring GitHub Issues, official changelog, StackOverflow.

OutcomeAction
✅ Known case / version bugList the known fix as a candidate solution; focus later hypothesis validation on that direction
⚠️ Related discussion, inconclusiveFeed into hypothesis directions
❌ Nothing foundSkip silently; continue the workflow's next stage

perf-optimize-workflow keeps its pattern table and stage orchestration; this subsection only owns the search methodology.

3. Industry-wide issue evaluation

Trigger (optional, pessimistic branch): the root cause clearly points to a hard platform / language / protocol / standard limit (e.g. browser security policy, JS single-threading, protocol constraints) with no obvious application-layer workaround.

Execute: WebSearch — is this a recognized industry-wide problem? How do mainstream frameworks / major companies handle it? Does any viable workaround exist?

Result handling:

OutcomeAction
🚫 Recognized hard problem, no viable solutionOutput the evaluation report (template in reference.md) and pause for the user's decision (explore workarounds / accept as-is)
⚠️ Limited but workarounds existList workarounds as candidates in solution exploration; continue
✅ Not industry-wide, a fixable problemContinue to the {impact-assessment step}

Distinction from §2: §2 searches known cases by symptom ahead of root-causing (applies whether or not a solution exists); §3 evaluates after the root cause is clear whether the industry has a recognized solution (for the no-solution scenario). They never overlap.

WebSearch discipline

All WebSearch execution in this skill follows effective-web-research: first its Step 0 triage (confirm the question is external, not solvable from the repo), then its 4 maxims (authority-first / currency check / cross-validate non-trivial claims / skip content farms); when the user demands rigor, switch to its strict mode and produce a report. Read that skill's current doc before searching — never from memory.

Integration guide (for referencing workflows)

  • Declare this skill in frontmatter dependencies; abort at startup if missing.
  • Reference line must state: your step-number mapping for the placeholders above, and which of your steps §2/§3 slot into.
  • Keep your semantic variants in your own body — e.g. jira-fix-workflow: §3 is a gate (not optional), a 🚫 outcome stops the flow and writes a Jira comment, and its report template lives in its own reference.md.

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.