hotfix
Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when an S1 or S2 production defect requires an emergency fix with an audit trail and rollback plan.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
28 rules. 0 are common, 19 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 26 edited versions we read keep these.
19
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
9
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 9
Before default delegation, run python3 ../../../tools/codex_studio/agent_delegation.py resolve --project-root <project-root> --role <role> …
- Distinctive: line 13
Ask one decision question per turn and wait for the answer before asking another.
- Very specific: line 14
Use request_user_input for structured choices when it is available.
- Distinctive: line 15
Use Codex custom agents by role and profile when delegation is useful.
- Distinctive: line 16
Treat any approved write as one complete proposed changeset.
- Distinctive: line 29
No subagent commits, publishes, or expands scope.
- Distinctive: line 30
Before an approved changeset, delegated work is read-only or draft-only.
- Distinctive: line 36
Read the bug description or ID.
- Distinctive: line 49
If [C]: stop. Verdict: REDIRECTED — use the normal bug fix workflow for S3 and below.
- Very specific: line 85
Keep this record as an in-memory draft intended for production/hotfixes/hotfix-[date]-[short-name].md until the implementation preflight …
- Distinctive: line 91
Check whether this is a git repository:
- Distinctive: line 93
Run git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree and inspect the result.
- Distinctive: line 95
If this command fails or returns empty: note "Not a git repository — create the branch manually." and skip branch creation.
- Very specific: line 97
If the check passes, use request_user_input before creating the branch:
- Very specific: line 104
Only run git checkout -b hotfix/[short-name] [base-ref] if user selects [A].
- Distinctive: line 116
Update the hotfix record with root cause, fix details, and test results.
- Distinctive: line 122
Use the Codex custom-agent delegation to request sign-off in parallel:
- Distinctive: line 128
All three must return APPROVE before proceeding.
- Very specific: line 134
After approvals, determine the QA scope required before deploying the hotfix.
- Distinctive: line 139
Ask qa-lead: Is a full smoke check sufficient, or does this fix require a targeted team-qa pass?
- Distinctive: line 146
Do not skip this gate. A hotfix that breaks something else is worse than the original bug.
- Distinctive: line 152
Update the original bug file if one exists:
- Distinctive: line 181
Every hotfix must have a rollback plan documented before deployment
- Distinctive: line 183
All hotfixes require a post-incident review within 48 hours
- Very specific: line 184
If the fix is complex enough to need more than 4 hours, escalate to technical-director
- Very specific: line 190
After deploying, run $bug-report verify [BUG-ID] to confirm the fix resolved the issue in the deployed build.
- Very specific: line 192
If VERIFIED FIXED: run $bug-report close [BUG-ID] to formally close it.
- Distinctive: line 193
If STILL PRESENT: the hotfix failed — immediately re-open, assess rollback, and escalate.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 26 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
<!-- codex-studio-delegation: governed -->Resolve every role through ../../../.codex/docs/plugin-agent-delegation.md;
do not require a repository-local .codex/agents/ or .codex/agent-packs/ tree.
Before default delegation, run python3 ../../../tools/codex_studio/agent_delegation.py resolve --project-root <project-root> --role <role> and use only its returned role contract.
Codex Interaction Contract
- Ask one decision question per turn and wait for the answer before asking another.
- Use
request_user_inputfor structured choices when it is available; otherwise ask the same concise question directly. - Use Codex custom agents by role and profile when delegation is useful.
- Treat any approved write as one complete proposed changeset. Before writing, present every target path and material edit together; do not add unlisted files or behavior.
- A new path, expanded scope, or material change requires a revised complete proposed changeset and fresh approval.
Release Safety Boundary
Creating or switching branches, committing, pushing, deploying, releasing, or publishing requires explicit user authorization at that step. Ask again immediately before each operation; approval for one step never authorizes another. Each destructive operation requires its own explicit authorization and rollback explanation.
Delegation Contract
- Delegate only work that is independent and bounded.
- Name the custom-agent role and the exact artifact or evidence it must return.
- Delegated agents must not spawn additional agents (
agents.max_depth = 1). - The parent synthesizes every result and presents all exact paths and changes to the user.
- No subagent commits, publishes, or expands scope.
- Before an approved changeset, delegated work is read-only or draft-only.
Explicit invocation only: This skill should only run when the user explicitly requests it with
$hotfix. Do not auto-invoke based on context matching.
Phase 1: Assess Severity
Read the bug description or ID. Assess severity using these criteria:
- S1 (Critical): Game unplayable, data loss, security vulnerability
- S2 (Major): Significant feature broken, workaround exists
- S3 or lower: Minor issue — normal bug fix workflow applies
Confirm with request_user_input:
- Prompt: "I've assessed this as [assessed severity] — [brief rationale]. Confirm severity to proceed:"
- Options:
[A] S1 (Critical) — game unplayable, data loss, or security issue[B] S2 (Major) — significant feature broken, workaround exists[C] S3 or lower — redirect to normal bug fix workflow
If [C]: stop. Verdict: REDIRECTED — use the normal bug fix workflow for S3 and below.
Phase 2: Create Hotfix Record
Draft the hotfix record:
## Hotfix: [Short Description]
Date: [Date]
Severity: [S1/S2]
Reporter: [Who found it]
Status: IN PROGRESS
### Problem
[Clear description of what is broken and the player impact]
### Root Cause
[To be filled during investigation]
### Fix
[To be filled during implementation]
### Testing
[What was tested and how]
### Approvals
- [ ] Fix reviewed by lead-programmer
- [ ] Regression test passed (qa-tester)
- [ ] Release approved (producer)
### Rollback Plan
[How to revert if the fix causes new issues]Keep this record as an in-memory draft intended for production/hotfixes/hotfix-[date]-[short-name].md until the implementation preflight below includes that exact path in one complete proposed changeset.
Phase 3: Create Hotfix Branch
Check whether this is a git repository:
Run git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree and inspect the result.
If this command fails or returns empty: note "Not a git repository — create the branch manually." and skip branch creation.
If the check passes, use request_user_input before creating the branch:
- Prompt: "Ready to create hotfix branch 'hotfix/[short-name]' from [base-ref]?"
- Options:
[A] Yes — create branch[B] Use a different base ref — I'll specify it[C] Skip — I'll create the branch myself
Only run git checkout -b hotfix/[short-name] [base-ref] if user selects [A]. If [B]: ask the user for the base ref, then run the command with that ref. If [C]: skip branch creation and proceed to Phase 4.
Phase 4: Investigate and Implement
Investigate read-only first and identify the minimum change that resolves the issue. Do NOT refactor, clean up, or add features alongside the hotfix.
Before editing, present one implementation preflight listing the hotfix record, every source/config file, every test/evidence file, the exact acceptance criteria, and rollback risk. Obtain approval for that complete proposed changeset. Delegated implementation stays inside it; any new path or material change pauses for revised approval.
Validate the fix by running targeted tests for the affected system. Check for regressions in adjacent systems.
Update the hotfix record with root cause, fix details, and test results.
Phase 5: Collect Approvals
Use the Codex custom-agent delegation to request sign-off in parallel:
custom-agent role: lead-programmer— Review the fix for correctness and side effectscustom-agent role: qa-tester— Run targeted regression tests on the affected systemcustom-agent role: producer— Approve deployment timing and communication plan
All three must return APPROVE before proceeding. If any returns CONCERNS or REJECT, do not deploy — surface the issue and resolve it first.
Phase 5b: QA Re-Entry Gate
After approvals, determine the QA scope required before deploying the hotfix. Delegate to qa-lead through Codex custom-agent delegation with:
- The hotfix description and affected system
- The regression test results from Phase 5
- A list of all systems that touch the changed files (use Search to find callers)
Ask qa-lead: Is a full smoke check sufficient, or does this fix require a targeted team-qa pass?
Apply the verdict:
- Smoke check sufficient — run
$smoke-checkagainst the hotfix build. If PASS, proceed to Phase 6. - Targeted QA pass required — run
$team-qa [affected-system]scoped to the changed system only. If QA returns APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, proceed to Phase 6. - Full QA required — S1 fixes that touch core systems may require a full
$team-qa sprint. This delays deployment but prevents a bad patch.
Do not skip this gate. A hotfix that breaks something else is worse than the original bug.
Phase 6: Update Bug Status and Deploy
Update the original bug file if one exists:
## Fix Record
**Fixed in**: hotfix/[branch-name] — [commit hash or description]
**Fixed date**: [date]
**Status**: Fixed — Pending VerificationSet **Status**: Fixed — Pending Verification in the bug file header.
Output a deployment summary:
## Hotfix Ready to Deploy: [short-name]
**Severity**: [S1/S2]
**Root cause**: [one line]
**Fix**: [one line]
**QA gate**: [Smoke check PASS / Team-QA APPROVED]
**Approvals**: lead-programmer ✓ / qa-tester ✓ / producer ✓
**Rollback plan**: [from Phase 2 record]
Merge to: release branch AND development branch
Next: $bug-report verify [BUG-ID] after deploy to confirm resolutionRules
- Hotfixes must be the MINIMUM change to fix the issue — no cleanup, no refactoring
- Every hotfix must have a rollback plan documented before deployment
- Hotfix branches merge to BOTH the release branch AND the development branch
- All hotfixes require a post-incident review within 48 hours
- If the fix is complex enough to need more than 4 hours, escalate to
technical-director
Phase 7: Post-Deploy Verification
After deploying, run $bug-report verify [BUG-ID] to confirm the fix resolved the issue in the deployed build.
If VERIFIED FIXED: run $bug-report close [BUG-ID] to formally close it.
If STILL PRESENT: the hotfix failed — immediately re-open, assess rollback, and escalate.
Schedule a post-incident review within 48 hours using $retrospective hotfix.
Use request_user_input:
- Prompt: "Hotfix complete. What's the next step?"
- Options:
[A] Run $smoke-check to verify the fix[B] Run $patch-notes to document this hotfix[C] Stop here
Other versions27 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 11
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27k36% same
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 9376% same
- tranhieutt/software_development_department★ 7135% same
- CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 1948% same
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 1778% same
- lilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios★ 876% same
- dawn840705/claude-code-studios★ 176% same
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 184% same
- scotidev/GameDevStudio★ 148% same
- Swih/godot-foundry★ 146% same
1 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 16
- microsoft/roosterjs★ 1.3ksame name
- nudgebee/nudgebee★ 520same name
- pixel-cellar/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 324same name
- Aurealibe/claude-config★ 68same name
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
- CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio★ 9same name
- edjchapman/claude-code-config★ 8same name
- skullninja/coco-workflow★ 8same name
- florian101010/awesome-agentic-AI-coding-template★ 4same name
- gonimar/claude-web-studio★ 4same name
6 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 repository76 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- Codex Studio Testing Framework/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- prototypes/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- tests/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adoptSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- art-bibleSkill
- asset-auditSkill
- asset-specSkill
- balance-checkSkill
- brainstormSkill
- bug-reportSkill
- bug-triageSkill
- changelogSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- consistency-checkSkill
- content-auditSkill
- create-architectureSkill
- create-control-manifestSkill
- create-epicsSkill
- create-storiesSkill
- day-one-patchSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- estimateSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- helpSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- localizeSkill
- map-systemsSkill
- milestone-reviewSkill
- onboardSkill
- patch-notesSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- playtest-reportSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qa-planSkill
- quick-designSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- release-checklistSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- reverse-documentSkill
- review-all-gddsSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- setup-engineSkill
- skill-improveSkill
- skill-testSkill
- smoke-checkSkill
- soak-testSkill
- sprint-planSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- startSkill
- story-doneSkill
- story-readinessSkill
- team-audioSkill
- The first 60 shown.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

