agentleFS
n-n-coden-n-code/n-n-code-skills/.agents/skills/project-platform-diagnose/SKILL.md

project-platform-diagnose

Skill4 starsChanged 12 days agoMITView on GitHub

Diagnostic project overlay for environment-dependent build, install, startup, CI, container, headless, terminal, or runtime failures. Not for ordinary logic bugs or known release packaging changes.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Do not use this as primary for a reproducible logic bug (use the matching principle skill and add project-core-dev only when …

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer built-in diagnostics and reproducible smoke checks.

    line 42
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not make permanent machine changes, install system dependencies, or start external services or GUI applications merely to test a …

    line 53

≈ “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

Project Platform Diagnose

This overlay can stand alone for environment-only triage. Add matching language or discipline guidance when the diagnosis reaches source code or a specialized implementation boundary.

When to use

The problem differs by operating system, architecture, terminal, shell, CI, container, headless mode, installed runtime, service environment, or another platform fact.

Not for

Do not use this as primary for a reproducible logic bug (use the matching principle skill and add project-core-dev only when repository-specific completion evidence is not concrete), a known config-contract defect (project-config-and-tests), Playwright harness or browser installation repair (setup-playwright), vendored dependency ownership (project-vendor-boundary), or release artifact layout (project-release-maintainer). Start here only while the environment remains a plausible cause, then hand off when the failure is isolated.

Diagnostic Workflow

  1. Inspect the failing command's side effects before rerunning it. Reproduce it within existing authority, using an isolated or check-only variant when needed, and capture exit status and relevant output. A failed install, migration, or deployment is not automatically safe to repeat. Separate build or install failures from startup and runtime failures.
  2. Record only relevant non-secret facts: OS, architecture, runtime and tool versions, shell or terminal mode, local versus CI or container, filesystem and permission assumptions, and required services. Never dump the full environment or expose credentials.
  3. Compare a working and failing environment when both exist. Build the smallest difference set and change one plausible variable at a time.
  4. Prefer built-in diagnostics and reproducible smoke checks. Use temporary directories, disposable containers, or other reversible probes when available; clean up created state.
  5. Classify direct observations separately from hypotheses. Distinguish an environment limitation, missing dependency, install defect, unsupported platform, config defect, and app regression before recommending a fix.
  6. Report whether the issue reproduced, the discriminating evidence, remaining unknowns, and the next smallest probe. Implement a code, config, setup, or release fix when the request includes repair, using the matching skill and existing authorization; otherwise report the diagnosis.

Do not make permanent machine changes, install system dependencies, or start external services or GUI applications merely to test a hypothesis without the required authorization.

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.