agentleFS
Sign inStart free
VeselyVesely/skills/root-cause/SKILL.md

root-cause

Skill28 starsChanged 7 months agoNo licenceView on GitHub

Use when a defect's mechanism is known and the change you are about to ship may leave it intact — prompt/instruction tweaks, retries, warnings, post-hoc repair, fallbacks, guards downstream of the bad value — or when cost, risk, validation difficulty or scope is steering you toward a substitute. Fires on YOUR OWN reasoning, not just the user's words — "too risky to change", "hard to validate", "we detect and correct it downstream", "the prompt now instructs it to", "out of scope for this fix", "we don't have that information", "that's decided by the model". ALWAYS load before writing "fixed" or "root cause" in any summary, commit or PR. Not for initial diagnosis (use systematic-debugging), nor for routine fixes that plainly remove the mechanism.

27 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use prove-it, grill 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.
  • Neko-Catpital-LabsSkill

    prove-it

    Shared evidence rule for investigating, diagnosing, debugging, proving, or explaining what happened or why for any problem or situation: do not assert something is fixed, working, passing, merged, or running unless you personally observed it this turn and can show what you saw; do not assert it was caused by X until a repro and controlled isolation prove that cause.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • renatorozasSkill

    grill

    Adversarial code review. Don't let me ship until the changes pass your scrutiny.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • sunnyclinches44Skill

    explain

    Explains code using real-world analogies and ASCII diagrams

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • jasonmichaelbell78-creatorSkill

    skill-audit

    Interactive behavioral quality audit for individual skills. Evaluates against 12 quality categories (including T25 convergence loop and completion verification) to surface attention management issues and produce actionable decisions. Includes self-audit verification that all decisions were actually implemented. Uses convergence loops in its own discovery phase. Produces a decision record and updated skill files.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    design

    Design rules and conventions for the API Center Portal. Use when editing detail pages, card components, badges, layout, navigation, sidebars, or headers. Covers badge styling, metadata placement, page navigation patterns, and layout alignment.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    spec

    Produce a verified spec — problem, desired outcome, and acceptance criteria — before building. Use when given a GitHub/Linear issue link, when starting from a fuzzy in-conversation idea, or asked to "figure out what to do" / "scope this" / "what should I build" — whenever the *what* isn't yet pinned down. Grills the ambiguities, checks the premise against the code, and produces acceptance criteria you sign off on — then hands to design-first.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 25 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

No licence file, so all rights are reserved — read it at the source. We count its rules but don't quote them. Read them on GitHub.

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 25 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.

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.

Check your setup, free