agentleFS
sidiangongyuansidiangongyuan/codex-skills-library/skills/app-bug-forensics/SKILL.md

app-bug-forensics

Skill11 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when diagnosing or fixing user-reported application bugs. Guides evidence-backed root-cause analysis from symptoms, screenshots, logs, provider failures, background tasks, storage, or desktop lifecycle behavior through a scoped patch and regression tests.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

18 rules. About 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈16

    Distinctive · estimate

    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:

    Use this skill when a user reports a bug, screenshot, intermittent failure, or confusing app behavior.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not assume the visible error string names the real failing component.

    line 18
  3. Distinctive:

    Follow the request from UI event to state store, API client, backend route, persistence, sidecar/process boundary, and external provider …

    line 21
  4. Distinctive:

    Search for all places that can set the visible error state.

    line 23
  5. Distinctive:

    Check whether the failing request still belongs to the current selection.

    line 24
  6. Distinctive:

    Default AI profile being added when the user selected another profile.

    line 33
  7. Distinctive:

    Prefer a focused test or local run over broad speculation.

    line 46
  8. Distinctive:

    If the issue is intermittent, add timing, request tokens, or controlled mocked delays to reproduce the race.

    line 47
  9. Distinctive:

    If external provider behavior is suspected, separate mock branch tests from one real minimal connectivity test.

    line 49
  10. Distinctive:

    Keep optional feature failures local to their own UI area.

    line 57
  11. Distinctive:

    If a request may already be running remotely, reconnect to local job state rather than resending the provider call.

    line 58
  12. Distinctive:

    Add the narrowest meaningful test for the bug shape.

    line 66
  13. Very specific:

    Read references/app-quality-principles.md when the bug involves user-visible errors, provider tests, storage, startup, or UI state.

    line 74
  14. Very specific:

    Read references/living-to-tell-casebook.md when the bug resembles raw Not Found, Failed to fetch, provider 403 HTML, sidecar leftovers, …

    line 77
  15. Distinctive:

    Do not hide a current valid failure by catching and ignoring every exception.

    line 85
  16. Distinctive:

    Do not claim the issue is fixed because a mock test passes.

    line 86
  17. Distinctive:

    Do not use fake data, fake provider success, or broad fallback behavior to make a test pass while the real user workflow remains broken.

    line 87
  18. Distinctive:

    Do not expose API keys, auth files, private text, or raw provider HTML in the final report.

    line 89

≈ “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

App Bug Forensics

Use this skill when a user reports a bug, screenshot, intermittent failure, or confusing app behavior. The goal is root cause first, patch second.

Workflow

  1. Preserve the symptom.
    • Identify the exact screen, action sequence, visible message, and affected data scope.
    • Inspect screenshots and logs when available.
    • Do not assume the visible error string names the real failing component.
  2. Trace the path.
    • Follow the request from UI event to state store, API client, backend route, persistence, sidecar/process boundary, and external provider when relevant.
    • Search for all places that can set the visible error state.
    • Check whether the failing request still belongs to the current selection.
    • For AI failures, identify the exact provider, model, transport, profile, credential source, timeout, and whether the request reached the provider.
  3. Classify likely root cause.
    • Stale async request or route watcher race.
    • Frontend/backend version mismatch or old sidecar process.
    • Missing optional capability being treated as fatal.
    • Provider protocol, model, key, base URL, or auth mismatch.
    • Default AI profile being added when the user selected another profile.
    • Long-running provider request blocked behind an unclosable dialog.
    • Provider request timed out locally after remote token usage already began.
    • Background job result, status, reconnect, or cancellation state was lost.
    • Saved credential/profile source disappeared or was overwritten by another profile.
    • Data migration/path/access issue.
    • UI overlay, selection, scrolling, or layout state bug.
    • Result view was hidden or discarded by navigation instead of explicit clearing.
    • Installer or process lifecycle half-update.
  4. Reproduce minimally.
    • Prefer a focused test or local run over broad speculation.
    • If the issue is intermittent, add timing, request tokens, or controlled mocked delays to reproduce the race.
    • If external provider behavior is suspected, separate mock branch tests from one real minimal connectivity test.
    • For charged or slow provider paths, do not auto-retry the full generation while investigating. Probe status and run only minimal real requests.
  5. Fix the cause.
    • Ignore stale results instead of showing stale errors.
    • Translate current real errors into user-facing copy.
    • Keep optional feature failures local to their own UI area.
    • If a request may already be running remotely, reconnect to local job state rather than resending the provider call.
    • Preserve completed AI results until the user explicitly clears or replaces them.
    • Preserve user data; do not "fix" by deleting local state unless the user explicitly asks.
  6. Lock the regression.
    • Add the narrowest meaningful test for the bug shape.
    • Include a manual acceptance path when the bug depends on installer, provider, OS, or real browser behavior.
    • Report what was reproduced, what was fixed, and what remains only manually verified.

Reference Use

Read references/app-quality-principles.md when the bug involves user-visible errors, provider tests, storage, startup, or UI state.

Read references/living-to-tell-casebook.md when the bug resembles raw Not Found, Failed to fetch, provider 403 HTML, sidecar leftovers, stale article/reference selection, startup black windows, data location confusion, or duplicate anchors/excerpts, AI result hiding, provider timeout after token use, profile key isolation, or background job recovery.

Red Lines

  • Do not hide a current valid failure by catching and ignoring every exception.
  • Do not claim the issue is fixed because a mock test passes.
  • Do not use fake data, fake provider success, or broad fallback behavior to make a test pass while the real user workflow remains broken.
  • Do not expose API keys, auth files, private text, or raw provider HTML in the final report.

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.