failure-escalation
Skill1 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
Stop repeated local patching and move unresolved failure to root-cause review, higher-level analysis, or stage rollback. Use after repeated failed repair attempts, cross-layer evidence, exhausted diagnosis budget, or widening regressions.
In this repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adaptive-testingSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- artifact-validationSkill
- change-impactSkill
- clarification-gateSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- component-planningSkill
- failure-diagnosisSkill
- framework-checkpointSkill
- framework-resumeSkill
- gap-analysisSkill
- implement-componentSkill
- integration-gateSkill
- minimum-pathSkill
- project-intakeSkill
- quality-gateSkill
- reverse-engineeringSkill
- stage-gateSkill
- traceabilitySkill
- workflow-assessmentSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 14
Run when the same failure persists after a bounded repair cycle, patches create new failures, diagnosis remains UNKNOWN, or evidence points …
- Distinctive: line 25
Stop further local edits and preserve the failing workspace/evidence.
- Distinctive: line 43
Do not repeat an attempt without new evidence or a falsifiable hypothesis.
- Distinctive: line 57
No safe rollback point exists.
- Very specific: line 64
Use Clarification Gate for product/risk/rollback authority.
- Distinctive: line 68
Stop when local patching is halted and a bounded higher-level action is assigned, or when the work is explicitly blocked awaiting …
≈ “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
Failure Escalation
Purpose
Break unproductive repair loops and return the problem to the lowest higher layer capable of correcting its cause safely.
Trigger
Run when the same failure persists after a bounded repair cycle, patches create new failures, diagnosis remains UNKNOWN, or evidence points above the current implementation layer.
Inputs
- Failure/RCA records, attempt history, diffs, test/build evidence, and current revision.
- Classified or suspected responsible layers and confidence.
- Current Stage, Minimum Necessary Path, Workflow Level, Checkpoint, and rollback points.
- Affected Artifacts, Components, Contracts, assumptions, decisions, and risks.
Prerequisites
- Stop further local edits and preserve the failing workspace/evidence.
- Distinguish a genuinely new failure from recurrence of the same cause.
Procedure
- Declare
STOP_LOCAL_PATCHINGand record the escalation trigger. - Summarize attempted repairs, outcomes, and why another local patch is unjustified.
- Review or refresh Root Cause Analysis across Requirement, Architecture, Detailed Design, Contract, Interface, Data, Implementation, Test, and Environment.
- Identify the earliest responsible layer with enough evidence to act.
- Determine whether to rework locally with a new bounded hypothesis, transfer to a specialist, or roll back Stage/Artifact decisions.
- Select a safe rollback/checkpoint or preserve current state for comparison.
- Mark affected Artifacts
STALE/UNVERIFIEDand ComponentsUNVERIFIED/FAILED. - Define higher-level analysis, clarification, repair owner, revalidation, and exit criteria.
- Reassess Workflow Level and risk.
- Recompute the Minimum Necessary Path after the escalation decision.
Decision Rules
- Do not repeat an attempt without new evidence or a falsifiable hypothesis.
- Roll back only far enough to reach the responsible decision layer.
- Requirement/product rollback requires user authority; architecture rollback requires an explicit decision/ADR update.
- Preserve history; do not erase failed evidence or pretend the previous Gate passed.
- A changed repair layer invalidates downstream evidence based on the old decision.
Outputs
- Escalation Record and
STOP_LOCAL_PATCHINGstatus. - Higher-level owner/layer, rollback decision/point, and rationale.
- State invalidations, risk/workflow reassessment, revalidation scope, and recomputed path trigger.
Failure Cases
- No safe rollback point exists.
- Evidence cannot distinguish layers.
- Required decision owner is unavailable.
- Rollback/destructive action lacks authorization.
Escalation
Use Clarification Gate for product/risk/rollback authority. Use Architecture Decision for structural rollback. Pause the affected path when evidence or authority is unavailable rather than continuing speculative edits.
Stop Conditions
Stop when local patching is halted and a bounded higher-level action is assigned, or when the work is explicitly blocked awaiting evidence/authority. Do not perform the repair inside this Skill.
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.

