diagnose
Skill38 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use only when explicitly asked to run diagnose: investigate a bug through causal probes and recorded evidence.
193 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- agent-services-at/pluginstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Eclipter/agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- venhdev/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- DeevsDeevs/agent-systemtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use zoom-out, to-prd and 10 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.
victorgarciaesgiSkillzoom-out
Tell the agent to zoom out and give broader context or a higher-level perspective. Use when you're unfamiliar with a section of code or need to understand how it fits into the bigger picture.
Also in 61 projects that use this
GoogleSkillto-prd
Turn the current conversation into a PRD and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.
Also in 56 projects that use this
GoogleSkillto-issues
Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable issues on the project issue tracker using tracer-bullet vertical slices.
Also in 53 projects that use this
simo97Skilledit-article
The user will invoke this skill to help them edit an article.
Also in 17 projects that use this
simo97Skillwrite-a-skill
Create new agent skills with proper structure, progressive disclosure, and bundled resources. Use when user wants to create, write, or build a new skill.
Also in 44 projects that use this
AnasX7Skillsetup-pre-commit
Set up Husky pre-commit hooks with lint-staged (Prettier), type checking, and tests in the current repo. Use when user wants to add pre-commit hooks, set up Husky, configure lint-staged, or add commit-time formatting/typechecking/testing.
Also in 27 projects that use this
- +4 more from simo97
Other versions193 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 2
- CherryHQ/cherry-studio-app★ 4.1k68% same
- gabimoncha/skills★ 1112% same
Wrote their own version · 191
- github/awesome-copilot★ 41ksame name
- epicenter-md/epicenter★ 4.8ksame name
- EpicenterHQ/epicenter★ 4.8ksame name
- pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow★ 1.7ksame name
- formancehq/ledger★ 1.5ksame name
- getagentseal/founder-playbook★ 745same name
- victorgarciaesgi/regle★ 508same name
- amazingloft999-droid/mattpocock-skills★ 422same name
- openvetta/open-vetta★ 302same name
- InditexTech/weavejs★ 266same name
181 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository9 other files it gives its agents.
- commit-confirmSkill
- commitSkill
- diagnose-fix-loopSkill
- git-integrateSkill
- legend-list-best-practicesSkill
- legend-state-best-practicesSkill
- react-coding-styleSkill
- simplifySkill
- video-recordingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 174 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
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 8
Use this workflow after an explicit diagnose or diagnose-fix-loop invocation.
- Distinctive: line 12
Start from the user's concrete anchor: file, route, error, log, screen, branch, artifact, or reproduction step.
- Distinctive: line 28
Choose discriminating evidence: Use existing tests, traces, and logs first.
- Distinctive: line 30
Before reproducing, define the probe contract:
- Very specific: line 43
When reproduction requires inaccessible state, credentials, devices, subjective interaction, or risky actions, first prepare the capture, …
- Distinctive: line 45
If the user corrects the trigger, affected component, lifecycle, or visible symptom, invalidate evidence and probes that target the …
- Distinctive: line 66
Proven — 100%: every applicable cause meets the proof standard with no unresolved plausible alternative.
- Distinctive: line 74
Keep diagnostic logs until the user requests cleanup or they become durable diagnostics.
- Distinctive: line 80
Keep feedback-loop design, hypothesis ranking, confidence scoring, ambiguous interpretation, and the final diagnosis in the main thread.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 174 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.
Files
Diagnose
Use this workflow after an explicit diagnose or diagnose-fix-loop invocation. Ordinary bug reports and fix requests do not opt in.
Find and explain the cause of the requested symptom using discriminating evidence. Pursue stronger proof while a practical probe can change the conclusion; do not require a numeric confidence threshold before a credible, scoped fix.
Start from the user's concrete anchor: file, route, error, log, screen, branch, artifact, or reproduction step. Consult relevant architecture notes, ADRs, glossaries, and test docs. Inspect code, run safe tools or tests, and analyze existing artifacts.
Explicit invocation of Diagnose constitutes approval for behavior-neutral temporary instrumentation within the requested scope. Reuse authorization already present in the conversation or the diagnose-fix-loop invocation for scoped fixes. Ask only when a next action lacks that authorization or requires unavailable access or a material unresolved decision.
References
Load only what applies:
- Browser or React web: browser-react.md
- iOS, Android, React Native, macOS, TV, or physical device: app-device.md. macOS app sessions default to agent-device's native backend; read its setup and XCTest fallback before opening the app.
- Logs, runtime probes, metrics, or debug hooks: instrumentation.md
Evidence Loop
- Locate likely causes. Inspect the code path and existing evidence around the user's anchor. Form the smallest useful set of likely areas and falsifiable candidate causes, including independent or contributing causes when applicable. Give each cause a distinguishing prediction and identify where those predictions diverge.
Choose discriminating evidence. Use existing tests, traces, and logs first. When they cannot distinguish the leading causes, load instrumentation.md and add temporary structured probes at the relevant boundaries. Instrument competing causes together when one reproduction can distinguish them.
Before reproducing, define the probe contract:
- the exact trigger and visible symptom
- the questions this run will answer
- each candidate cause's distinguishing prediction
- the events, fields, and correlation IDs that test those predictions
- how the evidence will be tied to the exact visible failure
- the intended process, build, window, document, and runtime identity when applicable
A baseline reproduction may establish the symptom before instrumentation. Before treating a reproduction as causal evidence, ensure its observations distinguish the leading candidates and confirm the exact symptom.
Reproduce the issue. Use the fastest deterministic signal that represents the reported symptom: focused test, script, browser test, trace replay, harness, repeat loop, profiler, app/device automation, or structured human reproduction. Run it when safe and observable. For intermittent failures, run enough repetitions to compare causes.
When reproduction requires inaccessible state, credentials, devices, subjective interaction, or risky actions, first prepare the capture, exact steps, expected observation, and artifact to inspect. Ask the user to reproduce and reply
done; confirm the returned evidence matches the reported failure.If the user corrects the trigger, affected component, lifecycle, or visible symptom, invalidate evidence and probes that target the previous interpretation. Return to cause location and instrumentation before reproducing again; do not continue with a nearby but mismatched reproduction.
- Collect and analyze. Collect the complete output, correlate events across boundaries, compare it with each prediction, and record evidence for and against every cause. If the logs are incomplete or ambiguous, identify how the likely areas or instrumentation must change before another reproduction.
Determine confidence. Rank each cause by role (root, contributing, or alternative),
0-100%confidence, supporting and conflicting evidence, and the next evidence that could change its score or rank. Treat scores as qualitative judgments, not calibrated statistical probabilities. Assign 100% operational confidence only when:- the exact symptom is reproduced
- the causal chain from trigger to failure is observed
- controlling the suspected boundary reliably controls the symptom
- the cause or combination of causes explains every relevant observation
- plausible alternatives are falsified or included as contributing causes
- intermittent behavior is repeated enough to distinguish causality from coincidence
If proof is incomplete, choose the safest practical probe likely to add discriminating evidence and state which results would raise, lower, or redistribute confidence. Revise the likely areas or instrumentation and repeat the loop only while such a probe exists; do not repeat an equivalent pass without changing its inputs, boundary, or instrumentation.
Stop probing when no available probe should increase confidence, a pass adds no evidence and no distinct boundary remains, or the needed evidence requires unavailable access, user action, unacceptable risk, or disproportionate effort. Report Supported if the available evidence justifies a credible cause and scoped fix; otherwise report Incomplete. Never label unresolved proof as proven.
Output
Lead with one status:
- Proven — 100%: every applicable cause meets the proof standard with no unresolved plausible alternative.
- Supported: evidence identifies a credible cause and scoped fix, with specific remaining uncertainty.
- Incomplete: available evidence does not yet support a credible cause or fix.
For Proven or Supported, report the cause, causal chain, decisive evidence, code or runtime boundary, and any remaining uncertainty. For Incomplete, rank candidates, explain why evidence is insufficient, and identify the smallest useful next probe. Always name the validation signal. Confidence scores are judgments, not measured probabilities.
Temporary Diagnostics
Keep diagnostic logs until the user requests cleanup or they become durable diagnostics. If committing while temporary diagnostics remain, stage only intended durable changes and report what remains unstaged.
Delegation
Use subagents only when the user explicitly requests delegation, subagents, parallel work, or token optimization. Delegate bounded mechanical collection to faster or cheaper agents: known commands or repro loops, logs, screenshots, traces, profiles, extraction, or artifact comparison. Give each task a success condition, output format, runtime boundary, and no-edit instruction unless mutation is explicit.
Keep feedback-loop design, hypothesis ranking, confidence scoring, ambiguous interpretation, and the final diagnosis in the main thread. Verify delegated evidence and inspect the working tree and background processes before continuing.
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.

