failure-forensics
Skill0 starsChanged 13 days agoMITView on GitHub
Diagnose a reproducible software failure by narrowing symptoms to a root cause and verifying the repair. Use for crashes, incorrect results, flaky tests, and hard-to-explain regressions.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- soysantana/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- cdeust/zetetic-team-subagentstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- B-A-M-N/Confluxtheir own version, first seen Feb 25, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents★ 8same name
- soysantana/skills★ 2same name
- B-A-M-N/Conflux★ 1same name
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 repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-skill-auditSkill
- api-contract-checkSkill
- build-rescueSkill
- change-narrativeSkill
- context-handoffSkill
- data-quality-gateSkill
- dataset-workshopSkill
- dependency-careSkill
- docs-syncSkill
- experiment-ledgerSkill
- model-diff-reviewSkill
- model-eval-designSkill
- multi-agent-crosscheckSkill
- parallel-task-designSkill
- performance-proofSkill
- release-readinessSkill
- repo-scoutSkill
- research-evidence-mapSkill
- review-lensSkill
- safe-migrationSkill
- security-surfaceSkill
- spec-firstSkill
- sql-integrity-checkSkill
- test-driven-changeSkill
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 3 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 14
Use a minimal experiment to falsify the leading hypothesis.
- Distinctive: line 26
Do not delete user data, reset a database, clear caches with side effects, or change production state to diagnose a local bug without …
- Distinctive: line 28
Treat timing correlation as a clue, not proof of causation.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Failure Forensics
Procedure
- Capture the exact symptom: error message, stack trace, inputs, environment, frequency, and when it started. Redact secrets and personal data.
- Reproduce the failure with the smallest reliable command or test. If reproduction is impossible, say so and gather the best available evidence.
- Form a few competing hypotheses. Rank them by consistency with observed evidence, not by familiarity.
- Trace values from input to failure. Inspect recent changes, boundary conditions, async ordering, state mutation, configuration, and dependency behavior where relevant.
- Use a minimal experiment to falsify the leading hypothesis. Change one variable at a time when practical.
- Fix the root cause rather than masking the symptom. Add a regression test that would have caught it.
- Repeat the reproduction and run neighboring tests. Inspect logs and output to ensure no new error path was introduced.
Report
- Reproduction steps and observed result
- Root cause, with specific file/symbol evidence
- Minimal repair
- Regression test and verification results
- Remaining uncertainty, if any
Boundaries
- Do not delete user data, reset a database, clear caches with side effects, or change production state to diagnose a local bug without explicit authorization.
- Preserve failing artifacts and logs when they are needed to understand the issue.
- Treat timing correlation as a clue, not proof of causation.
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.

