agentleFS
bex-cobex-co/bex/.claude/skills/rt-fix-prod-crashes/SKILL.md

rt-fix-prod-crashes

Skill576 starsChanged 18 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Hunts real application crashes — first by listening to bex platform service logs for panics, crash loops, and 5xx bursts, then by fuzzing untrusted-input parsers with Go native fuzzing — and lands root-cause fixes with regression tests. Use when the user asks to run the rt-fix-prod-crashes routine, hunt panics or crashes, fuzz the platform, or investigate service crashes.

  • Reads credentials

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 4 are 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.

  • 4

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    After the verification phase, follow the shipping phase below without asking the user to invoke ship separately.

    line 15
  2. Very specific:

    Every change must pass the verification gates for the modules it touched before being reported as done: operator make test + make lint …

    line 19
  3. Very specific:

    Run npx prettier@3.4.2 --write on any markdown touched.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    Before shipping, summarize results in commentary using: Fixed (file:line + one-line rationale) / Deferred (item + why) / Skipped (finding + …

    line 21
  5. Very specific:

    Check restarts and events: kubectl -n bex-system get pods (restart counts) and kubectl -n bex-system get events --sort-by=.lastTimestamp …

    line 38
  6. Very specific:

    Run with a budget: go test -run '^$' -fuzz FuzzXxx -fuzztime 90s ./path/.

    line 54
  7. Distinctive:

    Run the gates for every module touched (see ground rules).

    line 59

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Routine: Crash Fuzzer

Find crashes from two evidence sources — live platform service logs first (real crashes beat hypothetical ones), then Go native fuzzing of untrusted-input parsers — and fix each at its root cause.

Routine ground rules

  • A user request to run this routine authorizes the full cycle: plan, fix, verify, then invoke $ship (Codex) or /ship (Claude) directly in the same run. Honor explicit user limits such as audit-only or no-ship.
  • Keep a concise execution plan in the conversation and update it as findings are confirmed. Continue into implementation without a planning approval pause. Do not create or file a .pm milestone/task as a prerequisite or substitute for fixing; use the board only if the user requests it.
  • After the verification phase, follow the shipping phase below without asking the user to invoke ship separately. Preserve the ship skill's branch, conflict-resolution, and safety rules.
  • Fix everything you find directly in the working tree. If a fix can't be finished safely in this run, revert only your partial work for that fix and list it under Deferred in the report — never leave the tree half-refactored.
  • Scope: parse $ARGUMENTS per Phase 1 — an optional path/module scope or skill-specific target. No argument = the skill's stated default (usually the whole repo via parallel agents per module: lego/types, lego/operator, lego/backend, lego/cli, dashboard).
  • False-positive discipline: if a finding is intentional, load-bearing, or ambiguous, skip it with a one-line reason — don't argue it into a change.
  • Every change must pass the verification gates for the modules it touched before being reported as done: operator make test + make lint (from lego/operator/), cd lego/backend && go test ./..., cd lego/cli && go test ./..., dashboard yarn test + typecheck.
  • Run npx prettier@3.4.2 --write on any markdown touched.
  • Before shipping, summarize results in commentary using: Fixed (file:line + one-line rationale) / Deferred (item + why) / Skipped (finding + reason) / Gates (commands run + outcomes).

Phase 1 — Scope

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

  • logs — run Phase 2 only.
  • blueprint | rest | graphql | operator — run Phase 3 only, on that target family.
  • A package path — fuzz that package only.
  • Empty — full run: Phase 2, then Phase 3 in priority order.

Phase 2 — Listen to platform service logs

  1. Resolve a cluster, in priority order; never print kubeconfig contents:
    • Production: BEX_SSH_KEY_PATH=~/.ssh/id_bex bash scripts/fetch-app-kubeconfig.sh /tmp/bex-app.kubeconfig, then export KUBECONFIG=/tmp/bex-app.kubeconfig. Delete /tmp/bex-app.kubeconfig when the phase ends.
    • Local: infra/local/bex.kubeconfig if the mock cluster is up.
    • Neither reachable → note it in the report and continue to Phase 3.
  2. Check restarts and events: kubectl -n bex-system get pods (restart counts) and kubectl -n bex-system get events --sort-by=.lastTimestamp (OOMKilled, CrashLoopBackOff, probe failures).
  3. Sweep logs for each platform service (operator, bex-api, ssh-gateway, activator, pg-sni-proxy, kv-sni-proxy, egress-meter, static-server): kubectl -n bex-system logs --prefix --since=48h deploy/<svc>, plus --previous for any container that restarted. Grep for panic:, runtime error, fatal error, goroutine , SIGSEGV, and 5xx bursts.
  4. Deduplicate into distinct crash signatures. For each: root-cause from the stack trace in the source, fix the actual defect, and add a regression test reproducing the crashing input/state. Keep every crashing input as a fuzz seed for Phase 3.

Phase 3 — Fuzz untrusted-input parsers

Target families in priority order (the repo has no fuzz tests today — the targets you write are durable artifacts):

  1. Blueprint compiler (highest value — untrusted render.yaml → IR → plan): CompileBlueprintSource in lego/backend/internal/apps/blueprint_compiler.go, plus the IR/plan pipeline (blueprint_ir.go, blueprint_plan.go) and lego/backend/internal/api/render_openapi.go.
  2. REST decoding — stdlib ServeMux handlers in per-feature rest.go files under lego/backend/internal/.
  3. GraphQL resolvers — per-feature graphql.go files.
  4. Operator — CRD defaulting/validation feeding the four reconcilers in lego/operator/internal/controller/.

For each target:

  1. Write a persistent Fuzz* target in a *_fuzz_test.go beside the code. Seed with f.Add calls harvested from real fixtures in the package's existing tests (blueprint_*_test.go is full of render.yaml strings) and any Phase 2 crashing inputs. Seeds live as f.Add calls so they're reviewable; NEVER commit testdata/fuzz/ cache directories.
  2. Run with a budget: go test -run '^$' -fuzz FuzzXxx -fuzztime 90s ./path/. Cap total fuzzing wall time at ~10 minutes across all targets.
  3. For each crasher: minimize the input, root-cause the panic — fix the actual nil deref/index/overflow, never wrap in a blanket recover — and promote the input to a named f.Add seed or a plain regression TestXxx.

Phase 4 — Verify and report

Run the gates for every module touched (see ground rules). Then report in the standard format, including crash signatures found in logs, fuzz targets added, and crashers fixed.

Final phase — Ship

After all required gates pass, read and execute the ship skill for the routine's completed changes. Stage only intended changes from this run; preserve unrelated work. Do not end at a plan, findings report, milestone, or request for shipping approval. If there are no changes, report that outcome without creating an empty commit. If a required gate remains blocked or fails after reasonable repairs, report the exact blocker and do not ship unverified changes.

Once the push succeeds, report the shipped HEAD SHA and subject per the ship skill and stop; do not monitor CI or deployment.

Download now (ZIP)

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.