agentleFS
Sign inStart free
yezhwiyezhwi/superpowers-engineering-harness/skills/diagnosability-review/SKILL.md

diagnosability-review

Skill3 starsChanged 45 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Review Q2/Q3 changed business paths for production diagnosability and persist structured review input.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are 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.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

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

    Run in VERIFYING or REVIEWING: harness review diagnosability --file <file> rejects other task states.

    line 9
  2. Very specific:

    Read .harness/observability.yaml, changed files, declared direct dependencies, and existing logging, correlation, masking, …

    line 11
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not scan whole repository.

    line 13
  4. Very specific:

    Use pass, fail, or not_applicable.

    line 27
  5. Distinctive:

    Never recommend full-object logging, method entry/exit logs, automatic insertion, or generic logging best practice.

    line 29

≈ “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

Diagnosability Review

Run in VERIFYING or REVIEWING: harness review diagnosability --file <file> rejects other task states.

Read .harness/observability.yaml, changed files, declared direct dependencies, and existing logging, correlation, masking, exception-handler, and reason-code conventions.

Do not scan whole repository. Do not add code. Do not prescribe logger framework.

For each review, create input for harness review diagnosability --file <file> with all checks:

business_keys
external_failure_context
state_transitions
caller_rejections
sensitive_data
duplicate_exception_logging
low_value_logging

Use pass, fail, or not_applicable. Every fail needs concrete FND-* DIAG Finding with linked REQ-*, code location, scenario, severity, reason code, and static-compliance required checks.

Never recommend full-object logging, method entry/exit logs, automatic insertion, or generic logging best practice. Claim only reviewed-scope evidence.

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.

Check your setup, free