resolve-high-impact-unknowns
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Actively close HIGH/CRITICAL reverse-engineering unknowns by dispatching targeted source tracing, requiring search-exhaustion evidence before external blocking, and preventing premature baseline-readiness claims.
In this repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- adversarial-baseline-auditSkill
- architecture-drift-detectionSkill
- architecture-reconstruction-and-diagramsSkill
- artifact-detailed-designSkill
- baseline-source-of-truth-maintenanceSkill
- claim-verification-and-promotionSkill
- configuration-source-traceSkill
- contract-impact-test-designSkill
- current-state-tdd-synthesisSkill
- design-artifact-decompositionSkill
- design-artifact-decomposition-verificationSkill
- detailed-design-verificationSkill
- full-reverse-engineeringSkill
- implementation-readiness-certificationSkill
- incident-root-cause-analysisSkill
- integration-selection-analysisSkill
- observability-traceability-analysisSkill
- patch-impact-reviewSkill
- persistence-schema-reverse-engineeringSkill
- post-readiness-adversarial-auditSkill
- regression-test-designSkill
- requirement-compliance-reviewSkill
- resume-reverse-engineeringSkill
- reverse-engineering-bootstrapSkill
- reverse-engineering-coverage-auditSkill
- run-engineering-workflowSkill
- runtime-binding-verificationSkill
- runtime-flow-analysisSkill
- technical-design-proposalSkill
- technical-design-verificationSkill
- wbs-generationSkill
- wbs-verificationSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈11
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
- Distinctive: line 10
Do not merely list high-impact unknowns.
- Distinctive: line 100
Do not rely on the original search that produced UNKNOWN.
- Distinctive: line 111
all direct call/construction sites
- Distinctive: line 118
Before unresolved closure, record what was actually searched.
- Distinctive: line 123
When the unknown concerns externally meaningful data, do not resolve it until the material chain is closed:
- Distinctive: line 135
When the unknown concerns external reachability of a known downstream boundary:
- Distinctive: line 144
Do not resolve reachability based on one representative endpoint.
- Distinctive: line 146
If one direct invocation site remains unresolved, the question remains:
- Distinctive: line 169
all source-visible invocation sites classified when reachability-related
- Distinctive: line 192
If limits are hit, persist exact next Q-ID, unresolved provenance/exposure link, search anchor, and skill to run.
- Distinctive: line 212
Do not print the full report to console.
- Very specific: line 225
If implementation guidance is useful, label it PROPOSED and do not promote it into the evidence ledger as source truth.
- Very specific: line 231
When this skill is invoked by a workflow whose state_path is under docs/reverse-engineering/runs/<run_id>/, do not create or update …
≈ “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.
Files
Resolve High-Impact Unknowns — 4.0
Mission
Do not merely list high-impact unknowns. Close them where the repository can answer them.
Inputs
Read:
00_open_questions.md
workflow_state.yaml # runner-owned authoritative state for the active workflow
00_investigation_coverage.md
00_current_understanding.md
00_evidence_ledger.mdLoad only relevant detailed artifacts per question.
Prioritization
Process:
CRITICAL first
then HIGHWithin equal impact, prefer questions that block multiple downstream claims or tasks.
For Each Question
1. Restate the Missing Fact
Make it specific and falsifiable.
Bad:
Checkout timeout source is unknown.Better:
Which configuration source, key, default, and override chain determines the checkout timeout used by the Python order worker?Also make provenance/exposure questions falsifiable.
Examples:
Under which checkout request conditions is the promotion code retrieved, normalized, and returned in the order response?Which REST endpoints, message consumers, or scheduled jobs can reach the C++ pricing-engine boundary after enumerating every source-visible invocation site?2. Determine Investigation Domain
Dispatch one or more skills:
configuration source / mode
→ /configuration-source-trace
runtime implementation / DI / factory binding
→ /runtime-binding-verification
persistence / DB schema / DAO
→ /persistence-schema-reverse-engineering
end-to-end operation behavior
→ /runtime-flow-analysis
integration routing
→ /integration-selection-analysis
field/data provenance
→ /runtime-flow-analysis plus targeted source trace through retrieval → mapping → output
external exposure from a known downstream boundary
→ boundary → exposure closure using caller/reference tracing
other
→ targeted source trace using system-reverse-engineer rules3. Search From Multiple Anchors
Do not rely on the original search that produced UNKNOWN.
Use alternate anchors:
- consumer backward
- source/config forward
- symbol references
- implementations
- startup/bootstrap
- tests
- migrations/scripts
- all direct call/construction sites
- caller fan-out from impacted downstream boundaries
- serializers/mappers/parsers
- related constants/enums
4. Record Search Coverage
Before unresolved closure, record what was actually searched.
4A. Provenance / Exposure Closure Requirements
When the unknown concerns externally meaningful data, do not resolve it until the material chain is closed:
trigger
→ source/downstream retrieval
→ source data
→ parse/transform
→ mapping/state
→ serialization/output
→ observable resultWhen the unknown concerns external reachability of a known downstream boundary:
boundary
← ALL direct invocation/construction sites
← ALL caller chains
← external entry points / proven internal rootsDo not resolve reachability based on one representative endpoint.
If one direct invocation site remains unresolved, the question remains:
SOURCE_SEARCH_PENDING
or SOURCE_SEARCH_IN_PROGRESS.
5. Resolve
Use one:
RESOLVED_VERIFIED
RESOLVED_REJECTED
NOT_APPLICABLE
EXTERNALLY_BLOCKED
SOURCE_SEARCH_PENDINGEXTERNALLY_BLOCKED requires:
- repository search sufficiently exhausted
- alternate anchors used
- provenance chain traced as far as source allows when data/output-related
- all source-visible invocation sites classified when reachability-related
- code-side boundary/injection point identified when possible
- exact missing external artifact/value/evidence named
6. Promote If Appropriate
Resolved architectural facts still pass /claim-verification-and-promotion before canonical promotion.
Required Closure Matrix
| Q-ID | Impact | Question | Investigation Performed | Provenance / Exposure Closure | Source Result | Closure State | Evidence/Artifact | Remaining External Evidence |
Loop
Continue until:
HIGH/CRITICAL SOURCE_SEARCH_PENDING = 0or context/tool limits require PARTIAL_RESUMABLE.
If limits are hit, persist exact next Q-ID, unresolved provenance/exposure link, search anchor, and skill to run.
Output
Create/update:
docs/reverse-engineering/09_high_impact_unknown_closure.mdAlso update:
00_open_questions.md
workflow_state.yaml # runner-owned authoritative state for the active workflow
00_investigation_coverage.md
00_evidence_ledger.mdDo not print the full report to console.
4.0 Source-Fact Boundary
RESOLVED_VERIFIED applies to the source question, not to downstream design recommendations.
NO CURRENT MECHANISM FOUND
!=
SPECIFIC FUTURE MECHANISM VERIFIEDIf implementation guidance is useful, label it PROPOSED and do not promote it into the evidence
ledger as source truth.
4.0 Run-Scoped State Isolation
When this skill is invoked by a workflow whose state_path is under
docs/reverse-engineering/runs/<run_id>/, do not create or update ``workflow_state.md` or any second state file. The runner owns the single authoritative
workflow-declared YAML state file.
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.

