bug-investigation
Skill4 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
Diagnose a .NET defect from symptom to root cause and minimal fix. Use for unexpected behavior, exceptions, regressions, data loss, or production defects; diagnosis alone does not authorize code changes.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- lklimek/claudiustheir own version, first seen Nov 5, 2026
- SoftBlack42/StarPietheir own version, first seen Oct 9, 2026
- camunda/camundatheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- gregwebs/skills-sdlctheir own version, first seen Sep 29, 2026
- ldilov/harness-forgetheir own version, first seen May 19, 2026
- jasoncrawford/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 25, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- camunda/camunda★ 4.4ksame name
- SoftBlack42/StarPie★ 1.3ksame name
- gregwebs/skills-sdlc★ 20same name
- ligenjian001-ai/agent-skills★ 8same name
- ldilov/harness-forge★ 4same name
- hmj1026/bug-investigation★ 1same name
- jasoncrawford/claude-skills★ 1same name
- lklimek/claudius★ 1same name
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 repository37 other files it gives its agents.
- global-instructions/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- api-contract-safetySkill
- api-endpoint-deprecationSkill
- aspnet-core-api-developmentSkill
- background-services-dotnetSkill
- code-qualitySkill
- code-reviewSkill
- context-resetSkill
- dependency-managementSkill
- deployment-readiness-dotnetSkill
- diff-reviewSkill
- distributed-workflowsSkill
- dotnet-architectureSkill
- dotnet-implementationSkill
- dotnet-securitySkill
- ef-core-safetySkill
- exception-handlingSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- google-bigquery-dotnetSkill
- google-cloud-pubsub-dotnetSkill
- google-firestore-dotnetSkill
- http-client-integrationsSkill
- integration-testing-dotnetSkill
- observability-dotnetSkill
- performance-diagnostics-dotnetSkill
- poc-developmentSkill
- production-debuggingSkill
- production-hotfixSkill
- production-loggingSkill
- redis-dotnetSkill
- relational-database-dotnetSkill
- retry-resilienceSkill
- safe-terminalSkill
- shared-code-impactSkill
- targeted-validationSkill
- task-routerSkill
- unit-testingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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 8
Follow: symptom -> flow -> data -> divergence -> root cause -> minimal fix -> impact check -> validation.
- Distinctive: line 14
Test competing hypotheses with targeted inspection, logs, or tests.
- Distinctive: line 15
Search callers before changing shared code.
- Distinctive: line 16
If implementation is authorized, make the smallest fix that addresses the cause and add a regression test when practical.
- Distinctive: line 18
Do not fix unrelated warnings or failures.
- Distinctive: line 20
Keep a compact evidence ledger separating observed facts, competing hypotheses, checks performed, and conclusions.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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
Bug investigation
Follow: symptom -> flow -> data -> divergence -> root cause -> minimal fix -> impact check -> validation.
- Restate the observed and expected behavior, conditions, evidence, and affected scope. Distinguish facts from hypotheses.
- Reproduce when practical or identify the narrowest trustworthy evidence. Do not edit from an error message alone.
- Trace the actual execution path from entry point through the relevant service and integration/data boundary.
- For data or mapping defects, follow the value through request DTO -> mapper -> domain model -> business logic -> outgoing model/external system. Find the exact transition where it changes or disappears.
- Test competing hypotheses with targeted inspection, logs, or tests. Identify cause, not merely the line that throws.
- Search callers before changing shared code. Determine whether the behavior is global or flow-specific.
- If implementation is authorized, make the smallest fix that addresses the cause and add a regression test when practical.
Do not fix unrelated warnings or failures. Report uncertainty, reproduction gaps, and unrelated failures explicitly.
Keep a compact evidence ledger separating observed facts, competing hypotheses, checks performed, and conclusions. Report missing reproduction evidence rather than presenting a plausible hypothesis as verified.
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.