agentleFS
codeboehmcodeboehm/maxim/skills/analyze/SKILL.md

analyze

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Investigate a question or issue with real evidence — read the code, retrieve logs, and (where the project exposes them) use live agent/diagnostic endpoints, including running your own DB queries against the running system. Produces an evidence-backed findings report, not a fix. Use to diagnose a bug, answer a "how/why does X behave" question, or ground another task in reality.

  • Reads credentials

70 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use constitution, revise and 9 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.
  • ArvorCoSkill

    constitution

    Create or update the project constitution - personalized governance and coding principles. Use when starting a project or updating project standards. Triggers on: create constitution, update principles, set project rules.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • stormlightlabsSkill

    revise

    Address review comments on an open pull request and push the fixes. Use for /edit, /revise, or when asked to respond to review feedback on a PR number.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • DockerSkill

    write

    Write or edit reader-facing technical prose for immediate comprehension. Use for documentation, PR titles and descriptions, release notes, design documents, user-facing explanations, and substantive comments. Also use when asked to make writing clearer, more natural, less AI-generated, or easier to read. For documentation fixes, handles edits, formatting, self-review, and commits after research identifies what to change. Do not use for code-only tasks with no prose deliverable.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • H-mmerSkill

    submit

    Draft and submit a vulnerability report to the bug bounty platform. Reads scope.yaml for platform/program, uses brain + findings for content. Always drafts first for review.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GoogleSkill

    quality

    Evaluates whether a GitHub issue is spam, empty, needs more information, or is OK to proceed.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • ArvorCoSkill

    checklist

    Generate quality validation checklist from spec, plan, and tasks. Use after creating tasks. Triggers on: create checklist, quality checklist, validation checklist.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 60 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    When this skill is invoked, your job is to find out what is actually true and report it with evidence — not to implement a fix.

    line 6
  2. Distinctive:

    If a project documents agent/diagnostic endpoints or host (SFTP) access in its AGENTS.md, its skills, or its deploy scripts, use them — and …

    line 36
  3. Distinctive:

    Root cause, not symptom: Keep asking "is this the cause or a downstream effect?" Don't stop at the first plausible explanation — form a …

    line 46
  4. Distinctive:

    Safety on live systems — read-only by default: Never run mutating SQL or state-changing calls against a running system without explicit …

    line 57
  5. Very specific:

    If the project's AGENTS.md defines an analysis-output location, persist the report there, and run skills/index/reindex.sh.

    line 78
  6. Very specific:

    Use live/log/DB access only where the project actually provides it.

    line 84
  7. Distinctive:

    Read-only by default on any running system.

    line 86
  8. Distinctive:

    Never commit, deploy, or change state as part of analysis.

    line 87

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 60 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.

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

When this skill is invoked, your job is to find out what is actually true and report it with evidence — not to implement a fix. Prove every conclusion against real artifacts (code, logs, live data); never present a guess as a finding.

Sources of evidence (use what the project offers)

  1. Code & history — always available. Read the actual files, grep for real usage, check git log/blame. Cite path:line.
  2. Logs — retrieve them two ways, whichever the project supports:
    • Agent/log endpoint (if present) — e.g. an agent/logs route with filters (level, time window, class).
    • Host via SFTP — the project usually keeps host credentials in an environment/secrets variable (e.g. a .env.deploy with *_SFTP_HOST / _PORT / _USER / _PASS). Source it, connect with sftp/lftp, and read the log files under the host's log directory. Use the variable the project defines; do not hardcode hosts or credentials.
  3. Live agent/diagnostic endpoints (if present) — for inspecting the running system: health, config, routes, and often a query endpoint that runs your own SQL against the live database. Typical shape: a time-limited token in an auth header plus a request-flavor header; enumerate what's available via the project's routes/diagnostics endpoint before relying on a specific one.

Project-specific access

The endpoint URLs, the token-generation command, the header names, and the SFTP variable are project-specific. Discover them from the project's operational profile (.agents/project.md, its Live & diagnostic access section), its AGENTS.md, its skills, and its deploy/secrets scripts — do not invent them. If the project has no live access, say so and fall back to code + local reproduction.

If a project documents agent/diagnostic endpoints or host (SFTP) access in its AGENTS.md, its skills, or its deploy scripts, use them — and treat anything branded prod as production (read-only by default). If it documents none, say so and rely on code + local reproduction.

The senior bar (non-negotiable)

  • Evidence over assertion. Reproduce the issue if you can. Back each claim with the specific code line, log entry, or query result you saw. If you couldn't verify something, label it as inferred or unknown.
  • Root cause, not symptom. Keep asking "is this the cause or a downstream effect?" Don't stop at the first plausible explanation — form a hypothesis, then actively look for evidence that would disprove it.
  • Trace which branch actually runs. Two traps. (1) Reachability: in an if/elseif chain or behind early returns/guard ordering, only one branch executes — a later check is dead for any case an earlier branch already matched, so confirm the branch you're reasoning about is even reached before trusting its condition. (2) Alternative satisfiers / inputs: when behavior forks (token OR cookie OR session; cache hit vs. miss; one stage vs. another), check each path and confirm which one the real case takes — a control or value present on one path is often absent on another.
  • Safety on live systems — read-only by default. Never run mutating SQL or state-changing calls against a running system without explicit confirmation, and treat anything named/branded prod as production: minimize what you pull, do not exfiltrate secrets or personal data, and prefer the lowest-privilege, shortest-lived token. Live agent endpoints are normally dev/stage-gated for a reason — respect that gating; if it's off on a stage, that stage is off-limits.
  • Report, don't fix. This skill ends at findings. If a change is warranted, recommend the next step (often the specify skill) — don't start editing code.

Output

A tight findings report:

  • Question / issue — what you set out to determine.
  • What you checked — code, logs, endpoints/queries actually run (with the commands or path:line).
  • Evidence — the concrete observations (log lines, query results, code).
  • Finding — the root cause or the best-supported hypothesis, and what would confirm it if you couldn't fully verify.
  • Unknowns / next step — open questions and the recommended follow-up.

If the project's AGENTS.md defines an analysis-output location, persist the report there, and run skills/index/reindex.sh; otherwise keep it in the conversation unless asked to save it.

Rules

  • Use live/log/DB access only where the project actually provides it; otherwise rely on code + local repro and say the live path wasn't available.
  • Read-only by default on any running system; mutations need explicit go-ahead.
  • Never commit, deploy, or change state as part of analysis.
  • This skill is also optional tooling for prompt, specify, and implement — they call on it to ground context and verify claims against the running system.

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.