hunt
Skill5 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub
Find the root cause before any fix: build a red-capable repro loop, rank falsifiable hypotheses, prove, fix, sweep siblings. Also triages bug issues/PRs. Use on errors, crashes, regressions.
15 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Wanghaoyihaoyi/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- jsobolewski1/fonduetheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- kaelen2026/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- rockcookies/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- tw93/claude-healththeir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- iliasedelkin/jobissimotheir own version, first seen Oct 2, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use apply.
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.
proficientlyjobsSkillapply
Fill out a job application on Greenhouse, Lever, or Workday
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions15 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 15
- tw93/claude-health★ 7.5ksame name
- tw93/Waza★ 7.5ksame name
- H-mmer/pentest-agents★ 815same name
- ninehills/skills★ 280same name
- iliasedelkin/jobissimo★ 8same name
- jsobolewski1/fondue★ 6same name
- Wanghaoyihaoyi/agent-skills★ 3same name
- corygabrielsen/skills★ 1same name
- kaelen2026/skills★ 1same name
- rockcookies/skills★ 1same name
5 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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.
3
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 63
No prediction → sharpen or discard.
- Distinctive: line 67
Every probe maps to one prediction.
- Distinctive: line 69
Run the probe that would fail if the hypothesis were wrong.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 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
Hunt: Diagnose Before You Fix
Outcome Contract
- Outcome: the root cause is proven before any fix.
- Done when: one sentence explains the cause, every observed symptom fits it, and the fix (or handoff) is verified by the same loop that reproduced the bug.
- Evidence: loop command and output, source trace, logs or state, targeted test/build output, runtime evidence for UI/native defects.
- Authorization: "diagnose", "investigate", "why", "look into", "debug", "xem thử", "sao lỗi" is report-only. Edit code only on a request to fix, change, or implement, or while that authorization holds for the same unfinished task; never covers commit, push, publish, or anything destructive.
Do not touch code until you can write:
"I believe the root cause is [X at file:line / condition] because [evidence]."
Not "a state management issue" but "stale cache in useUser at src/hooks/user.ts:42 because the dependency array omits userId". Less specific → no hypothesis yet.
Modes
Resolve from a leading subcommand, else the request.
| Mode | Activate when | Does |
diagnose (default) | Error, crash, test failure, "not working", "why" | Steps 1–4, report only |
fix | "fix it", "sửa đi" | Full loop, steps 1–7 |
bisect | "used to work", "broke after update", a known-good commit or version | Step 1 is a bisect harness; read references/bisect-regression.md |
regression | Same issue after a fix, or a "good" screenshot/version/file to compare | The reference is the oracle; read references/bisect-regression.md |
sweep | After a root-cause fix, "anywhere else like this?", "còn chỗ nào giống vậy không" | Step 6 only, on a named pattern; read references/fix.md |
triage | Issue/PR queue, "look at #42", "what needs my attention", label/close/brief | references/triage.md replaces steps 2–7; its bug check reuses step 1 |
The Loop
1. Build a feedback loop (this is the skill)
Spend most effort here; load references/feedback-loops.md for ten loop recipes, tightening, and flaky bugs.
Exit criterion: one command already run, shown with (redacted) output, that is:
- Red-capable: drives the real code path and asserts the user's exact symptom, not "didn't crash".
- Deterministic: same verdict every run (flaky: a pinned, high reproduction rate).
- Fast (seconds).
- Agent-runnable: unattended; a human only through
scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh.
No theory from reading code before this command exists. No loop possible → stop, list attempts, ask for environment access, a redacted artifact (HAR, log, core dump, recording), or temporary instrumentation. Only the reporter has the environment → hand them a read-only probe script (prints env, the disputed value, the state the hypothesis turns on; nothing secret): one command, one block pasted back.
2. Reproduce and minimise
- The loop must show the user's failure, not a nearby one.
- List every symptom in the user's words, including "unrelated" ones.
- Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps one at a time, re-running, until every remaining one is load-bearing.
3. Hypothesise: 3–5 ranked, falsifiable
Each states its prediction:
"If X is the cause, then changing Y makes the bug disappear / changing Z makes it worse."
No prediction → sharpen or discard. Covers only some symptoms → symptom-level guess. Show the ranked list to the user before testing if present; do not block on it.
4. Instrument, then confirm or discard
- Every probe maps to one prediction; one variable at a time.
- Debugger/REPL first, then targeted logs at hypothesis boundaries; tag every temporary log with a unique prefix (
[DEBUG-a4f2]); never "log everything and grep"; playbook and per-bug-class tactics:references/logging-techniques.md. - Run the probe that would fail if the hypothesis were wrong. Contradicted → discard it and re-orient on what the probe showed. A log that changes the behavior is timing/lifecycle evidence, not noise.
For a recurring or runtime-state symptom (caches, queues, generated output, PATH, locale, timeouts, entry points), read ## Gotchas in references/failure-patterns.md, list its headings (grep -n '^## '), and read only the section matching the symptom before adding a second fix. Domain traps: references/ime-unicode.md (IME, cursor drift, emoji), references/rendering-debug.md (PDF, print, fonts).
5–7. Fix, sweep, clean up
fix, or bisect/regression with fix authorization: read references/fix.md and run steps 5–7.
Hard Rules
- Same symptom after a fix: hard stop. Re-read the execution path before touching code.
- Three failed hypotheses → stop, report with the Handoff format in
references/output.md, ask how to proceed. - Measure the lower layer first for system or tooling symptoms: OS capture vs post-processing, service vs UI, toolchain vs assertion, network vs client handling.
- External tool failure: diagnose before switching (server up, key valid, config right).
- Magic number tuned three times: stop. Unify into one named token; find the missing constraint.
- Redact every secret in commands, outputs, and artifacts you show (
<REDACTED>); build loops against env vars. - Fix the cause inside the authorized scope. A prerequisite refactor is fine if you state why; unrequested features and unrelated refactors are not.
Output
Report with the block and status in references/output.md; blocked → its Handoff format.
Defer to: check (diff review, no symptom), think (is it worth it), brainstorm (product decision), git (commit).
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.

