triage
Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
GitHub issue and PR investigator. Pulls open issues/PRs, classifies them, searches the codebase for root cause or reviews contributed code, proposes fixes with file:line references, and optionally implements fixes. Use for investigating GitHub issues and reviewing PRs; do NOT use for general code review unrelated to GitHub issues.
189 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- udecode/platetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- vercel-labs/add-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- chrysogonus/power-agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Adelie-Squad/solosquadtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- cloudflare/vinexttheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use writing-beats, setup-matt-pocock-skills 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.
LesaniSkillwriting-beats
Shape an article as a journey of beats, choose-your-own-adventure style. The user picks a starting beat from the raw material, you write only that beat, then offer options for where to pivot next, beat by beat, until the article reaches a natural end. Use when the user has raw material and wants to assemble it as a narrative rather than an argument.
Also in 66 projects that use this
GoogleSkillsetup-matt-pocock-skills
Configure this repo for the engineering skills — set up its issue tracker, triage label vocabulary, and domain doc layout. Run once before first use of the other engineering skills.
Also in 167 projects that use this
liufeng1976Skillsetup-ts-deep-modules
Wire dependency-cruiser into a TypeScript repo so each package is a deep module — implementation hidden in subfolders, reachable only through its entry-point files. User-invoked.
Also in 42 projects that use this
simo97Skillmigrate-to-shoehorn
Migrate test files from `as` type assertions to @total-typescript/shoehorn. Use when user mentions shoehorn, wants to replace `as` in tests, or needs partial test data.
Also in 68 projects that use this
LesaniSkillwriting-shape
Take a markdown file of raw material and shape it into an article through a conversational session — drafting candidate openings, growing the piece paragraph by paragraph, arguing about format (lists, tables, callouts, quotes) at each step. Use when the user has a pile of notes, fragments, or a rough draft and wants help turning it into something publishable.
Also in 63 projects that use this
RoentekSkillloop-me
Grill me about specs for the workflows I want to build, within this workspace.
Also in 54 projects that use this
- +1 more from Lesani
Other versions189 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 2
- SethGammon/Citadel★ 92799% same
- SethGammon/Armory★ 1930% same
Wrote their own version · 187
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- withastro/astro★ 64ksame name
- vectorize-io/hindsight★ 60ksame name
- ogulcancelik/herdr★ 47ksame name
- herdrdev/herdr★ 47ksame name
- colinhacks/zod★ 44ksame name
- QuivrHQ/quivr★ 40ksame name
- The-Vibe-Company/quivr★ 40ksame name
- vercel-labs/add-skill★ 39ksame name
- vercel-labs/skills★ 39ksame name
177 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 repository50 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architectSkill
- archonSkill
- ascii-diagramSkill
- autopilotSkill
- costSkill
- create-appSkill
- create-skillSkill
- daemonSkill
- dashboardSkill
- decision-mapSkill
- deploy-stewardSkill
- designSkill
- doc-genSkill
- doSkill
- evolveSkill
- experimentSkill
- fleetSkill
- grillSkill
- housecleanSkill
- improveSkill
- infra-auditSkill
- learnSkill
- live-previewSkill
- loopSkill
- mapSkill
- marshalSkill
- merge-reviewSkill
- organizeSkill
- postmortemSkill
- prdSkill
- pr-watchSkill
- qaSkill
- refactorSkill
- research-fleetSkill
- researchSkill
- reviewSkill
- scaffoldSkill
- scheduleSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- setupSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- telemetrySkill
- test-genSkill
- unharnessSkill
- verifySkill
- watchSkill
- wikiSkill
- workspaceSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
22 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 176 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 34
After the issue-monitor SessionStart hook reports new issues
- Very specific: line 44
Use native @codex review when the diff is GitHub-visible and the main need is a focused P0/P1 review.
- Distinctive: line 46
After Codex posts a GitHub review, fetch and ingest the review comments before deciding merge readiness:
- Very specific: line 52
Use --file <review-comments.json> with the same script when working from exported/offline review data.
- Distinctive: line 54
Treat ingested P0/P1 findings as blockers until local verification confirms they are fixed or not applicable.
- Very specific: line 70
Verify gh auth status
- Distinctive: line 117
Read the full diff — not just the PR description.
- Distinctive: line 118
Check for regressions against closed issues and recent commits.
- Distinctive: line 119
Check for conflicts with in-flight work (same files as open PRs).
- Distinctive: line 120
Verify the approach: correct solution, not overly complex.
- Distinctive: line 121
Check cross-platform: Unix assumptions, Windows path handling.
- Distinctive: line 122
Check conventions against existing project patterns.
- Distinctive: line 123
Check for scope creep beyond the PR title.
- Very specific: line 127
Write a per-PR resolution block (full template: docs/TRIAGE.md#pr-resolution-template) with:
- Distinctive: line 136
IMPORTANT: All PR actions are external.
- Distinctive: line 173
Read files named in the issue
- Distinctive: line 175
Search for the bug class or anti-pattern
- Distinctive: line 184
When introduced — git blame / log
- Very specific: line 200
Write a per-issue resolution plan (full template: docs/TRIAGE.md#issue-resolution-plan-template) with:
- Distinctive: line 210
Auto-fix: when: root cause clear and verified, fix contained to 1-3 files, no breaking changes, no architectural decisions needed.
- Distinctive: line 220
Comment with findings: when fix needs discussion or user input: post root cause analysis, proposed fix, and questions.
- Very specific: line 266
gh not available or not authenticated: Stop and instruct: "Run gh auth login before using /triage."
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 176 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
Triage — GitHub Issue & PR Investigator
When to Use
Don't use when: fixing a specific already-diagnosed issue (use /marshal); monitoring a single PR's CI (use /pr-watch); reviewing code quality outside of GitHub issues (use /review).
/triage— triage all open, unlabeled issues/triage 10— investigate issue #10 specifically/triage pr 13— review PR #13/triage prs— review all open PRs/triage --batch— pull all open issues, classify, investigate, report/triage --stale— find issues older than 14 days with no activity- After the
issue-monitorSessionStart hook reports new issues
Codex PR review integration
For Codex-visible PRs, decide whether to use native @codex review, local Citadel triage, or both:
node scripts/codex-pr-review.js plan --repo <owner/repo> --pr <number> --risk <low|medium|high|local-only> --writeUse native @codex review when the diff is GitHub-visible and the main need is a focused P0/P1 review. Use local Citadel triage when the answer depends on unpushed files, local generated artifacts, or hands-on edits. Use both for large or risky PRs.
After Codex posts a GitHub review, fetch and ingest the review comments before deciding merge readiness:
node scripts/codex-review-fetch.js --repo <owner/repo> --pr <number> --writeUse --file <review-comments.json> with the same script when working from exported/offline review data.
Treat ingested P0/P1 findings as blockers until local verification confirms they are fixed or not applicable.
Inputs
| Input | Source | Required |
| Issue/PR number | Argument (e.g., /triage 10, /triage pr 13) | No — omit to triage all open |
| Mode | pr prefix for PRs | No — defaults to issues |
| Repo | Auto-detected from git remote | Yes (auto) |
| gh CLI | "/c/Program Files/GitHub CLI/gh.exe" on Windows, gh elsewhere | Yes (auto) |
Execution Protocol
Phase 0 — Environment Setup
- Detect repo from
git remote get-url origin, extractowner/repo - Verify
ghauth status - Set
$GH: Windows →"/c/Program Files/GitHub CLI/gh.exe", other →gh
Phase 1 — Issue Intake
Single issue (/triage 10):
$GH issue view <number> --repo <owner/repo> --json number,title,body,labels,state,comments,createdAt,updatedAt,author,assigneesBatch (/triage or --batch):
$GH issue list --repo <owner/repo> --state open --json number,title,labels,createdAt,updatedAt --limit 50Filter to untriaged: issues with no labels, or missing priority/type label.
Stale (--stale):
$GH issue list --repo <owner/repo> --state open --json number,title,labels,createdAt,updatedAt --limit 100Filter to issues with no activity in 14+ days.
Single PR (/triage pr 13):
$GH pr view <number> --repo <owner/repo> --json number,title,body,author,state,files,commits,comments,createdAt,headRefName,baseRefName,mergeable,reviewDecision
$GH pr diff <number> --repo <owner/repo>All PRs (/triage prs):
$GH pr list --repo <owner/repo> --state open --json number,title,author,createdAt,labels --limit 50Phase 1b — PR Review Protocol
PR Classification
| Type | Signal |
bugfix | Fixes a reported issue, closes #N |
feature | Adds new functionality |
refactor | Restructures without changing behavior |
docs | Documentation only |
infra | CI/CD, build, packaging, installer |
PR Review Checklist
- Read the full diff — not just the PR description.
- Check for regressions against closed issues and recent commits.
- Check for conflicts with in-flight work (same files as open PRs).
- Verify the approach: correct solution, not overly complex.
- Check cross-platform: Unix assumptions, Windows path handling.
- Check conventions against existing project patterns.
- Check for scope creep beyond the PR title.
PR Resolution
Write a per-PR resolution block (full template: docs/TRIAGE.md#pr-resolution-template) with:
- Author, type, files changed count, mergeable status
- What it does (1-3 sentences)
- Review findings, each with a file:line reference
- Issues found, split into Critical (blocks merge) and Non-critical (nice to fix, not blocking)
- Recommendation checkbox: Approve / Request changes (with the specific changes needed) / Close (with reason)
PR Actions
IMPORTANT: All PR actions are external. Show the user the exact comment text and get approval before posting.
Phase 2 — Classification
Type (exactly one):
| Type | Signal |
bug | Error messages, "doesn't work", stack traces, regression |
feature | "Would be nice", "add support for" |
question | "How do I", "is it possible" |
docs | README/documentation issues |
infra | CI/CD, build, packaging, dependencies |
Severity (bugs only):
| Severity | Criteria |
critical | Blocks installation or core functionality for all users |
high | Breaks a major feature or affects many users |
medium | Breaks a minor feature or has a workaround |
low | Cosmetic, edge case, or easy workaround |
Affected Component:
- Citadel hooks / skills / agents
.claude/harness.json— project configuration.planning/— planning/campaign systemdocs/— documentation- Root files — project setup
Phase 3 — Investigation
3a. Parse the Report
Extract: error messages, environment, reproduction steps, expected vs actual behavior, workarounds.
3b. Search the Codebase
- Grep for exact error messages / error codes
- Read files named in the issue
- Find functions named in stack traces
- Search for the bug class or anti-pattern
git log --oneline -20 -- <affected-files>for recent changes- Cross-reference similar issues
3c. Root Cause Analysis
For bugs:
- What breaks — the specific code path
- Why it breaks — root cause, not symptom
- When introduced — git blame / log
- Who is affected — scope
- The fix — file:line references
For features/questions:
- Already possible? Search existing functionality.
- Where would it go? Which component/layer.
- Effort: trivial / small / medium / large
- Blockers: dependencies, architecture constraints
3d. Reproduce (when possible)
Set up conditions, run the failing command, confirm error matches, verify proposed fix resolves it.
Phase 4 — Resolution Plan
Write a per-issue resolution plan (full template: docs/TRIAGE.md#issue-resolution-plan-template) with:
- Type, severity, component, reproducible (yes / no / not-attempted)
- Root cause: 1-3 sentences explaining WHY
- Affected code:
<file>:<line>entries with what is wrong at each - Proposed fix: specific code changes with file:line references
- Impact: who is affected, whether a workaround exists, whether it is a breaking change
- Recommended action checkbox: Fix in next release / Needs more info from reporter / Won't fix (with reason) / Duplicate of #N
Phase 5 — Action
Auto-fix when: root cause clear and verified, fix contained to 1-3 files, no breaking changes, no architectural decisions needed.
Steps:
- Branch:
fix/issue-<number>-<slug> - Implement fix
- Run typecheck/build
- Commit:
fix: <description> (closes #<number>) - Push and open PR linking the issue
- Comment on the issue with the PR link
Comment with findings when fix needs discussion or user input: post root cause analysis, proposed fix, and questions.
Label only for questions/docs/features: add type + priority labels, optionally point to existing docs.
Phase 6 — Report
Output a Triage Summary table with columns # | Title | Type | Severity | Action | Status, one row per triaged item (example: docs/TRIAGE.md#triage-summary-example).
Label Taxonomy
Apply via $GH issue edit <number> --add-label "<label>":
Type: bug, feature, question, docs, infra
Severity (bugs): critical, high, medium, low
Status: needs-info, confirmed, wont-fix, duplicate
Auto-fix Handoff
---PR READY---
PR #<N>: <url>
To watch this PR automatically:
Local → /pr-watch <N>
Cloud → open in Claude Code web or mobile, toggle "Auto fix" ON
---Contextual Gates
Disclosure: "Triaging GitHub issues and PRs. Read-only — no changes made without showing you first." Reversibility: green — investigation is read-only; any GitHub actions (labels, comments, PRs) shown to user for approval before posting Trust gates:
- Any: view triage report; all external actions require explicit approval
Quality Gates
- Every issue has a classification (type + severity for bugs)
- Every bug has root cause with file:line references
- Every auto-fix passes typecheck and build
- Every PR links to the issue it fixes
- Every issue has at least a label or comment
- No issue comment is generic or substanceless
Fringe Cases
gh not available or not authenticated: Stop and instruct: "Run gh auth login before using /triage."
No open issues or PRs: Report "No open issues found." and exit cleanly.
Empty/unparseable issue body: Classify as needs-info, comment requesting reproduction steps.
.planning/ missing: /triage reads from GitHub, not local state. Skip .planning/ writes if missing.
Anti-Patterns — Do NOT
- Post generic comments without substance
- Propose fixes without reading the actual code
- Label without investigating
- Auto-fix when root cause is unclear
- Close issues without explanation
- Guess at fixes — verify by reading code and running checks
gh CLI Notes
- Windows:
"/c/Program Files/GitHub CLI/gh.exe"— always pass--repo <owner/repo> - Comments:
$GH issue comment <number> --repo <owner/repo> --body "..." - Labels:
$GH issue edit <number> --repo <owner/repo> --add-label "bug,high"
Exit Protocol
---HANDOFF---
- Triaged N issues: X bugs, Y features, Z questions
- Auto-fixed: <list of issue numbers with PR links>
- Needs attention: <list of issues requiring human decision>
- New labels applied: <count>
- Reversibility: green — investigation read-only; auto-fix PRs can be closed/reverted if unwanted
---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.

