「investigate」の検索結果

Plans an architecture-driven change to code that already exists: module boundaries, type responsibilities, layering, coupling, and the public surface a revision moves. Produces a buildable change plan that names the types, modules, and methods involved and records the surface delta each change makes. Use when the user wants to plan, scope, or sequence a restructure, extraction, split, consolidation, responsibility shift, or API revision of existing code, including "these responsibilities are wrong, plan the fix". Does not assess an area and stop at findings — use architectural-analysis. Does not specify new behavior — use plan-a-feature. Does not diagnose a bug — use investigate. Does not write the code — use refactor to restructure it or tdd to build it.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Researches an open-ended question — options, possible solutions, prior art, trade-offs, or how something works — and produces a durable, evidence-backed, adversarially-validated report that recommends an option without committing the team to any artifact. Use when you want to research approaches, weigh options, survey prior art or the state of the art, or understand how something works before committing to a direction. Does not diagnose a bug, failure, or root cause — use investigate. Does not specify a feature — use plan-a-feature. Does not create or update a coding standard — use coding-standard. Does not compare two concrete artifacts for gaps — use gap-analysis. Does not assess an existing module's architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evidence-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not plan the structural change a root cause calls for — use plan-a-change. Does not map bounded contexts or domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Write code through a disciplined, BDD-framed Test-Driven Development loop: build a behavior test list, then drive each behavior through red-green-refactor with an enforced observed-failure gate. Use when the user wants to implement, build, or write code test-first, "do TDD", follow "red-green-refactor", drive code from tests, choose the next test by the Transformation Priority Premise (TPP) or ZOMBIES ordering, or grow a feature behavior-by-behavior with tests leading. This skill writes and changes code; it does not produce a test plan document (use automated-test-planning, or manual-test-planning for a plan a person runs by hand), review or audit existing code (use code-review), restructure existing code outside a TDD loop (use refactor, or plan-a-change to plan a multi-module restructure), specify what a feature should do (use plan-a-feature), or find the root cause of a bug (use investigate). Runs its loop to completion without pausing for review; to review each behavior as it lands, use pairing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyzes an existing codebase using strategic Domain-Driven Design to discover bounded contexts, surface ubiquitous language and semantic collisions, find places where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries, and produce an evidence-backed domain and context map. Use when the goal is DDD-specific: bounded context discovery, ubiquitous language analysis, domain model discovery, or mapping contested ownership and responsibility. The entire repository is a valid scope; no module or directory must be named first. Does not assess architectural coupling, cohesion, or technical debt — use architectural-analysis. Does not design service communication, integration patterns, or deployment topology — use architectural-analysis or plan-a-feature. Does not refactor code, diagnose bugs, or review code quality — use refactor, investigate, or code-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Produces a progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes with code-overview and publishes the resulting overview to a user-specified Confluence location. Use when the user wants code or a PR explained, oriented, or made sense of AND the overview posted to a Confluence space or page. Requires a configured Atlassian MCP server. Does not produce the overview to a local file only — use code-overview. Does not publish an arbitrary existing markdown file — use markdown-to-confluence. Does not document an already-understood feature to Confluence — use project-documentation-to-confluence. Does not root-cause a bug to Confluence — use investigate-to-confluence. Does not plan or specify a new feature to Confluence — use plan-a-feature-to-confluence. Does not publish to Jira — use work-items-to-jira.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for planning the change its findings imply — use plan-a-change. Not for discovering bounded contexts, ubiquitous language, or where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Walks a person through code changes one step at a time in conversation, starting at the entry point and following the flow that changes, showing a small chunk per step and explaining it in plain language. Defaults to the current branch's changes, and walks the code from the perspective of any context provided instead — a file, directory, symbol, pull request, plan, or ticket. Use when someone wants to be walked through, taught, paced through, or shown around code or a branch step by step, or to learn how a change works before reviewing or extending it. Stops after every step and waits, so the learner sets the pace. Paces through code that already exists and builds nothing — to build new work while being paced through it, use pairing. Does not produce a written overview to read alone — use code-overview. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not diagnose bugs — use investigate.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Investigate a Rezolus performance recording (.parquet, .rez, .dendro) through the rezolus MCP server. Discovery before query, verdicts and marks written back, links to the viewer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Investigate MCP tool availability, discovery, and selection, including controlled adoption evaluations.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Investigate a GitHub issue and produce a structured implementation plan. Fetches issue details, explores the codebase, identifies affected layers (UI, BLoC, Repository, Client), and outputs a step-by-step plan with files to modify, testing strategy, and risk assessment. Works for bugs, features, and tasks. Invoke with /plan.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Locate root causes of failing regression tests by analyzing code changes, error messages, and test dependencies. Use when regression tests start failing after code changes, investigating test failures in CI/CD, debugging flaky tests, or understanding why previously passing tests now fail. Analyzes git diffs, stack traces, test output, and dependency changes to produce structured markdown reports ranking likely causes. Triggers when users ask to find why tests are failing, debug regression failures, investigate test breakage, or analyze failing test suites.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Identifies non-deterministic or unreliable tests through static code analysis and test result analysis. Use when Claude needs to find flaky tests, analyze test reliability, or investigate intermittent test failures. Supports Python (pytest, unittest) and Java (JUnit, TestNG) test frameworks. Trigger when users mention "flaky tests", "intermittent failures", "non-deterministic tests", "unreliable tests", or ask to "find flaky tests", "analyze test stability", or "why tests fail randomly".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Investigate or fix a GitHub issue by number or URL. Keep investigation-only requests read-only.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Research customer questions by searching across documentation, knowledge bases, and connected sources, then synthesize a confidence-scored answer. Use when a customer asks a question you need to investigate, when building background on a customer situation, or when you need account context.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Delegate bounded tasks to Grok Build from a supervising agent such as Codex. Use when the user asks Grok to investigate, review, implement, or provide another perspective, or when a distinct coding agent would materially help. Includes a background ACP client for progress, follow-up prompts, permissions, and cancellation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Investigate an alert or incident in this channel: classify the symptom, load the matching triage reference, check lessons.md for known causes, and post a grounded first-pass diagnosis with evidence links and a proposed (never executed) fix. Use when an alert fires, a routine detects a new anomaly, or someone reports something broken ("tests aren't running", "deploys look stuck", "is CI down?").

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Internal — for Boundless team members only. Query AWS CloudWatch logs for Boundless services (provers, slasher, distributor, order stream, order generator, indexer, signal) on prod/staging environments. Use when the user asks to look at service logs, debug service behavior from log output, search logs for a request ID, or investigate errors using CloudWatch. Do NOT use for debugging local code changes, reviewing PRs, or investigating issues in the codebase itself.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Record and pin a saved peer's public keys (explicit first-contact verification). Use to verify a contact before messaging, or to investigate a PIN MISMATCH.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Investigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Conducts deep technical research for Aha Loop stories. Use before implementing stories involving unfamiliar libraries or architectural decisions. Triggers on: research this, investigate, explore options, compare alternatives.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Finds the cause of a hard bug by running several read-only subagents in parallel, each attacking it from a different angle (change history, code path, data and state, environment, reproduction), then checking their evidence, ranking the hypotheses and naming the one experiment that would confirm the leader. It diagnoses and does not fix. Use when someone says "hunt this bug with multiple agents", "swarm on this regression", "investigate in parallel", "find the root cause", or when a failure is intermittent, crosses components, or has resisted a first look.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Systematic debugging methodology - scientific method, hypothesis testing, and root cause analysis that works across all technologiesUse when "bug, debugging, not working, broken, investigate, root cause, why is this happening, figure out, troubleshoot, doesn't work, unexpected behavior, debugging, root-cause, hypothesis, scientific-method, troubleshooting, bug-hunting, investigation, problem-solving" mentioned.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。