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).
In this repository79 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- openspec-apply-changeSkill
- openspec-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-bulk-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-continue-changeSkill
- openspec-exploreSkill
- openspec-ff-changeSkill
- openspec-new-changeSkill
- openspec-onboardSkill
- openspec-sync-specsSkill
- openspec-verify-changeSkill
- ai-proxy-disciplineSkill
- analysis-coreSkill
- android-webview-debugSkill
- article-writerSkill
- astrill-controlSkill
- brainstorm-workflowSkill
- browser-debug-toolkitSkill
- clarifying-question-disciplineSkill
- code-design-reviewSkill
- competitive-researchSkill
- completion-evidence-disciplineSkill
- context-budget-disciplineSkill
- decision-fog-disciplineSkill
- delivery-disciplineSkill
- design-approval-gateSkill
- domain-language-disciplineSkill
- effective-web-researchSkill
- essence-diagnosisSkill
- evolution-reviewSkill
- explain-clearlySkill
- feature-branch-closeoutSkill
- figma-pixel-implementSkill
- figma-pixel-verifySkill
- git-branch-protectSkill
- git-commitSkill
- git-conflict-resolveSkill
- git-release-finishSkill
- git-release-startSkill
- git-worktree-disciplineSkill
- goal-driven-queueSkill
- goal-driven-workflowSkill
- go-deploySkill
- hybrid-debugSkill
- intake-interview-disciplineSkill
- jira-fix-queueSkill
- jira-fix-workflowSkill
- jira-readSkill
- jira-status-lifecycleSkill
- jira-status-writebackSkill
- jira-wiki-markupSkill
- learn-and-improveSkill
- merge-disciplineSkill
- multi-agent-debateSkill
- node-version-disciplineSkill
- opsx-jira-fix-queueSkill
- opsx-jira-fix-workflowSkill
- opsx-solve-workflowSkill
- opsx-workspace-gateSkill
- perf-optimize-workflowSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Distinctive: line 22
Run immediately after the problem's existence is confirmed.
- Distinctive: line 30
When unsure, default to 🟢 internal-first (these workflows exist to change code.
- Distinctive: line 40
No code-level suspects: call chain complete, parameters correct, logs show execution — yet it doesn't work at runtime.
- Very specific: line 55
When the referring workflow is performance analysis (perf-optimize-workflow), treat §2 as a known performance-pattern quick search with …
≈ “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.
Files
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-researchin frontmatterdependencies. 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:
| Route | Signals | Emphasis |
| 🟢 Internal-first | About "our code/logic/conventions"; root cause suspected in this repo | Code location first; quick search (§2) as optional fallback; root-cause analysis is the core |
| 🔵 External-first | Named 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-researchStep 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:
| Outcome | Action |
| ✅ Known case found, root cause clear | Output the quick-search conclusion; jump to the {impact-assessment step}, skipping root-cause analysis |
| ✅ Upstream fix version found | Output 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 clear | Feed findings into the {root-cause step} as reference |
| ❌ Nothing found | Skip 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.
| Outcome | Action |
| ✅ Known case / version bug | List the known fix as a candidate solution; focus later hypothesis validation on that direction |
| ⚠️ Related discussion, inconclusive | Feed into hypothesis directions |
| ❌ Nothing found | Skip 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:
| Outcome | Action |
| 🚫 Recognized hard problem, no viable solution | Output the evaluation report (template in reference.md) and pause for the user's decision (explore workarounds / accept as-is) |
| ⚠️ Limited but workarounds exist | List workarounds as candidates in solution exploration; continue |
| ✅ Not industry-wide, a fixable problem | Continue 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.
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
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.

