root-cause-analysis
Skill0 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when investigating a bug, failure, regression, outage, or unclear behavior and the cause is not yet known. Mention "root cause", "why is this happening", "investigate this bug" as triggers.
17 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nledford/engineering-review-boardtheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- azoghry-commits/Cognition-OStheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Robert-Adunka/triz-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- KMaruthi2002/universal-llm-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- aictrl-dev/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 22, 2026
- realityforge/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use observability, adversarial-review and 6 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.
OpenAISkillobservability
Vercel Observability expert guidance — Drains (logs, traces, speed insights, web analytics), Web Analytics, Speed Insights, runtime logs, custom events, OpenTelemetry integration, and monitoring dashboards. Use when instrumenting, debugging, or optimizing application performance and user experience on Vercel.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkilladversarial-review
Adversarial review of a system design from 6 critical perspectives -- SRE, security, staff engineer, finance, operator, and developer advocate. Produces a unified risk assessment. Use for INTERACTIVE on-demand reviews during a design conversation (/adversarial-review). For RECIPE-DRIVEN reviews (where prior step context is needed), use the systems-design-critic agent instead.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkilldomain-modeling
Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when the user wants to pin down domain terminology or a ubiquitous language, record an architectural decision, or when another skill needs to maintain the domain model.
Also in 4 projects that use this
GoogleSkillimprove-codebase-architecture
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillhandoff
Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +3 more from google
Other versions17 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 17
- itseffi/agentic-os★ 114same name
- microsoft/cat-agent-skills★ 101same name
- Robert-Adunka/triz-skills★ 14same name
- nledford/engineering-review-board★ 11same name
- microsoft/aibast-agents-library★ 8same name
- viacheslav-tronko/claude-code-harness★ 6same name
- saitarrun/Devforge-ai★ 4same name
- aictrl-dev/skills★ 3same name
- azoghry-commits/Cognition-OS★ 3same name
- JacobStephens2/skills★ 2same name
7 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 repository45 other files it gives its agents.
- admission-policy-reviewSkill
- alert-rule-reviewSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- argocd-applicationsetSkill
- argocd-debugSkill
- argocdSkill
- cert-manager-debugSkill
- cicd-reviewSkill
- cilium-debugSkill
- ciliumSkill
- cluster-backupSkill
- dast-reviewSkill
- dockerfile-reviewSkill
- english-technical-messageSkill
- git-messageSkill
- gitops-reviewSkill
- go-bugfixSkill
- go-code-reviewSkill
- go-testing-reviewSkill
- grafana-dashboardsSkill
- helm-reviewSkill
- homelab-change-planSkill
- incident-analysisSkill
- ingressSkill
- interview-system-designSkill
- istio-debugSkill
- istioSkill
- kubernetes-autoscalingSkill
- kubernetes-debugSkill
- kubernetes-securitySkill
- kubernetes-yaml-reviewSkill
- migration-planSkill
- observability-reviewSkill
- observability-stackSkill
- production-readinessSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- runbook-writerSkill
- runtime-security-reviewSkill
- secrets-managementSkill
- storage-debugSkill
- supply-chain-securitySkill
- terraform-reviewSkill
- upgrade-readinessSkill
- vaultSkill
- vulnerability-triageSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 16 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 18
Read exact errors, recent changes, call paths, and focused test output.
- Distinctive: line 22
Do not present an untested hypothesis as the confirmed cause.
- Distinctive: line 26
Follow the Workflow, Safety rules, and Quality checklist below.
- Distinctive: line 36
Use when something is broken, behaving unexpectedly, or regressed, and the cause is not yet established — before jumping to a fix.
- Distinctive: line 64
Do not state a cause as confirmed until it has been validated with evidence.
- Distinctive: line 67
If two hypotheses remain equally plausible after investigation, say so rather than picking one arbitrarily.
- Distinctive: line 69
Do not apply the fix automatically unless asked — propose it first.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 16 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
Root Cause Analysis
TL;DR checklist
- Write the exact observed and expected behavior.
- Tie hypotheses to logs, code, metrics, and timeline evidence.
- Test competing explanations until one cause is supported.
Key read-only checks
- Read exact errors, recent changes, call paths, and focused test output.
Common pitfalls
- Do not present an untested hypothesis as the confirmed cause.
Agent procedure
Follow the Workflow, Safety rules, and Quality checklist below.
Quick references
- Workflow below.
Last verified: unverified
When to use
Use when something is broken, behaving unexpectedly, or regressed, and the cause is not yet established — before jumping to a fix.
Goal
Find the actual root cause, backed by evidence, and propose a fix and a way to prevent recurrence — without guessing.
Workflow
- Symptoms — write down exactly what is observed (error message, wrong output, crash, latency spike) and what was expected instead.
- Timeline — when did it start? What changed around that time (deploy, config, dependency bump, traffic pattern, data shape)?
- Evidence — gather logs, stack traces, metrics, recent commits/diffs, test failures. Quote exact evidence; do not paraphrase from memory.
- Hypotheses — list plausible causes ranked by likelihood, each tied to specific evidence that would confirm or rule it out.
- Validation — test each hypothesis (reproduce locally, add a targeted log/print, bisect the commit history, read the exact code path) until one is confirmed.
- Root cause — state the confirmed cause in one or two sentences, distinct from any contributing/secondary factors.
- Fix — propose the minimal correct fix for the root cause, not just the symptom.
- Prevention — suggest how to prevent this class of bug (test, assertion, lint rule, monitoring, process change).
Safety rules
- Do not state a cause as confirmed until it has been validated with evidence.
- Clearly separate "evidence" (what was observed) from "assumption" (what you believe but haven't checked) at every step.
- If two hypotheses remain equally plausible after investigation, say so rather than picking one arbitrarily.
- Do not apply the fix automatically unless asked — propose it first.
Output format
## Symptoms
## Timeline
## Evidence
## Hypotheses (ranked)
## Validation
## Root cause
## Fix
## PreventionQuality checklist
- Every claim in "Root cause" is backed by evidence listed above it
- Assumptions are explicitly labeled as assumptions, not stated as fact
- At least one alternative hypothesis was considered and ruled out
- The fix addresses the root cause, not just the symptom
- A prevention measure is proposed, not just the fix
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.

