'root cause' 검색 결과

GStack investigation method for bugs, incidents, failing tests, regressions, and unclear behavior where evidence and root cause should precede fixes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

You are a senior engineering lead and product architect. Given an observation, bug, or gap, conduct a thorough multi-dimensional investigation, find the root cause, plan the resolution, and create a detailed actionable GitHub issue.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use this skill when an incident or a serious near miss is closed and the team must learn from it, or an auditor asks for lessons learned, and someone says "run the post-mortem", "post-incident review", "lessons learned", "retro on the outage", "blameless review", "root cause of the incident" or "what do we change after this breach". Builds the timeline from records before the meeting, runs a blameless discussion, finds the contributing factors, and turns them into a few owned, dated actions linked to updates of the risk register, controls, playbooks and supplier records, then writes the review and an action tracker.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Creates structured bug reports for defects found during Oracle-to-PostgreSQL migration. Use when documenting behavioral differences between Oracle and PostgreSQL as actionable bug reports with severity, root cause, and remediation steps.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Deep, evidence-first review of GitHub bugs and PRs: reads the code before forming opinions, finds root causes, decides whether an issue is stale, duplicate, or real, and proposes the best fix. Use when an issue or PR needs real investigation rather than a summary.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Analyze one GitHub issue for root cause, complexity, and risk into .idd/analysis-N.json. Use when you need to analyze or scope issue #N. Don't use for creating issues (/issue-creator), triaging (/issue-triage), or resolving (/issue-resolver).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

The case-law chronicle of this repo's major failures — symptom, root cause, evidence, status, and the rule each battle minted — so nobody re-fights a settled battle or re-proposes a rejected fix. Use when a bug/incident looks familiar ("didn't this happen before?"), when you're about to propose an approach that may have been tried and rejected (e.g. shipping a migration from a package), when someone asks "why does rule X exist" / "why is done-by-lgtm a thing" / "what was incident 988", or when a bug-archaeology run hits the shallow-clone wall and needs the pre-June-2026 history. Trigger phrases: "has this broken before", "why can't packages ship migrations", "why did graduation fail", "why is the green-build lesson a rule", "what did we learn from incident NN". (For a live "build is green but the app is broken" symptom, start at crouton-diagnostics-index. NB keep this description free of any space-then-hash sequence — an unquoted YAML scalar treats space-hash as a comment start and silently truncates.)

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Pre-PRD Research methodology combining Business Analysis, Creative Problem-Solving, Brainstorming, and Innovation Strategy. Use before writing any PRD for problem validation, market research, competitive analysis, stakeholder interviews, ideation, root cause analysis.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Comprehensive Lean Six Sigma consulting skill supporting all belt levels (White Belt to Master Black Belt). Use this skill for DMAIC/DMADV project execution, Lean waste elimination (VSM, 8 Wastes/DOWNTIME, 5S), statistical analysis (process capability Cp/Cpk, control charts, hypothesis testing), and Six Sigma training/education. Triggers include "improve process", "reduce defects", "sigma level", "DMAIC project", "value stream mapping", "Kaizen", "process capability", "control chart", "root cause analysis", "5 Whys", "Fishbone diagram", "FMEA", "DOE", or requests involving process improvement methodologies.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Analyze network device logs to identify connectivity issues, latency problems, and outages. Correlate timestamps across timezones, detect anomaly patterns, and generate incident reports with root cause hypotheses. Use when troubleshooting network incidents from log files.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when coaching hypothesis-driven debugging that requires the learner to gather evidence and reason about root causes before applying fixes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use for bugs, test failures, broken behavior, or unexpected results; enforces 4-phase root-cause debugging before fixes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Standardized bug fix workflow using TDD (Red-Green-Refactor). Use when fixing bugs, resolving issues, or when the user invokes /bugfix. Ensures root cause analysis, failing test first, then minimal fix.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Production error → triaged, root-caused, repaired, and certified (tsc + rehearsal + reproduce-then-gone) fix PR for a human to merge — then confirm the error stops recurring. Never auto-merges.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Read the Convex deployment's 72h insights (read limits, OCC contention), root-cause each event in code, report evidence-backed perf/cost findings with fixes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reflection-first problem solving methodology for Convex development. Use before implementing any solution to ensure proper root cause analysis, 98% code confidence, and minimal change scope.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Read the Convex deployment's 72h insights (read limits, OCC contention), root-cause each event in code, report evidence-backed perf/cost findings with fixes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Production error → triaged, root-caused, repaired, and certified (tsc + rehearsal + reproduce-then-gone) fix PR for a human to merge — then confirm the error stops recurring. Never auto-merges.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reflection-first problem solving methodology for Convex development. Use before implementing any solution to ensure proper root cause analysis, 98% code confidence, and minimal change scope.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Facilitate structured post-incident reviews to identify root causes, document what worked and failed, and produce actionable recommendations to improve future incident response.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-drafter instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Drafts a nonconformance report from inspection notes, test results and the governing specification or procedure: what was observed, where, the evidence with references, the requirement cited quoted verbatim with the departure from it, and containment proposals for the quality lead to decide. Never classifies severity, dispositions the item, names a root cause or closes the report. Use when the user asks to "write up this nonconformance", "draft an NCR from my inspection notes", "formalise this deviation" or "turn this snag into a defect report". Do not use for tracking the actions an NCR raises, use corrective-action-tracker instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Drafts a blameless incident postmortem (summary, impact, timeline, detection and response, contributing factors as candidates for review, action items) from an incident channel export, ticket notes and any alert or change records, with UNKNOWN for every fact the inputs do not contain. Never assigns blame, names a root cause or re-rates severity. Use when the user asks to "write the postmortem for this incident", "build the incident timeline from the chat export", "draft the post-incident review" or "turn this ticket and channel log into an incident report". Do not use for a knowledge article from the resolved ticket, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis; for data-breach impact and notification questions, use data-incident-impact-brief. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Coach German writing and conversation with minimal corrections, persistent root-cause mistake tracking (FehlerDNA), mistake-based spaced repetition with a new sentence every time, roleplay whose words return in spaced reviews, continuing preparation for real-life goals across sessions, and an honest progress profile. Use for German correction, personalized review, vocabulary, progress, roleplay, or preparation for an interview, presentation, appointment, or other concrete event; do not use for translation-only requests without learning or feedback.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.