「root cause」の検索結果

Implements and validates the fix for a bug once a failing reproduction test exists. TRIGGER when: a bug has a failing reproduction test and you are ready to make it pass, implementing the root-cause fix, the final step of the bug-fixing pipeline. DO NOT TRIGGER when: no reproduction test exists yet → opsmill-dev-test-driving-bugs; still diagnosing, or asked to fix a bug with no analysis or reproduction test yet → opsmill-dev-analyzing-bugs.

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。

Self-healing codebase system. Monitors runtime errors, test failures, and build breaks. Automatically diagnoses root cause, generates fix, validates fix, and applies if safe. Zero human intervention for routine failures.

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。

Incident severity classification, runbook templates, root cause analysis, and post-incident 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。

Systematic investigation of metric changes and anomalies. Use when a metric unexpectedly changes, investigating business metric drops, explaining performance variations, or drilling into aggregated metric drivers.

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。

当监控平台、日志平台、值班对话或变更后异常暴露出某个资源、域名、IP 或业务现象时，围绕告警目标自动展开上下游拓扑，检查同一拓扑内的关联异常并归并根告警、派生告警和噪声告警，输出根因候选、影响范围和结构化诊断摘要。

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。

Use when a framed and root-caused problem needs its assumptions made explicit before design or planning begins — explicit Assumptions, Unknowns, and a Validation plan. This should trigger when an issue's Assumption Analysis point of view needs evaluation, or when a maintainer directly asks to surface hidden assumptions and unknowns before committing to an approach. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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。

Use when a problem or issue needs explicit framing before deeper analysis begins — establishing the Problem statement, Current state, Desired state, Stakeholders, and Success criteria. This should trigger when an issue's Problem Framing point of view needs evaluation, or when a maintainer directly asks to frame a problem before root-cause analysis, design, or planning begins. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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。

Comprehensive debugging specialist for errors, test failures, log analysis, and system problems. Use when encountering issues, analyzing error logs, investigating system anomalies, debugging production issues, analyzing stack traces, or identifying root causes. Combines general debugging workflows with error pattern detection and log analysis.

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。

【Bug 诊断专用】当遇到程序错误、异常行为、性能问题、功能故障时必须使用本技能。触发关键词：报错、Bug、问题、异常、故障、不工作、诊断、排查、修复。本技能提供系统性根因分析，输出详细诊断报告和可执行修复方案，包含代码位置引用、步骤指导、注意事项。仅提供分析和方案，不直接修改代码。

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。

Read from a UModel object-graph semantic layer with the `umctl` CLI (MCP alternative noted). Three kinds of read: (1) entities & relationships / topology (`.entity`, `.topo`) and (2) the model itself (`.umodel`, and `.entity_set` methods, including entity-linked `list_skills`) return real rows; (3) metrics & logs (`get_metrics` / `get_logs`) return an executable *plan* — PromQL / Elasticsearch DSL with the entity id pre-substituted — that you run against the backend. Against a PaaS endpoint the same calls return data rows instead of a plan. Use to query or read UModel entities, relations, topology, or model metadata; to read a service's metrics or logs; to look up services and dependencies; or to discover what objects, datasets, and methods exist. For root-cause analysis on top of these reads, see the `umodel-rca` skill. Triggers: UModel, object graph, .entity / .topo / .umodel / .entity_set, query entities, read topology, read metrics / logs, get_metrics / get_logs, list services / dependencies / datasets / skills, 实体查询, 关系/拓扑查询, 读模型, 读指标, 读日志, 查指标, 查日志, 查服务依赖.

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。

Systematically investigate bugs, test failures, build errors, performance issues, or unexpected behavior by cycling through characterize-isolate-hypothesize-test steps. Use when the user asks to "investigate this bug", "debug this", "figure out why this fails", "find the root cause", "why is this broken", "troubleshoot this", "diagnose the issue", "what's causing this error", "look into this failure", "why is this test failing", or "track down this bug".

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。

Think before typing. Root cause first, two candidate fixes, pick one, ask if still unclear, then change only the files the request needs. Edit the confidence bar and scope rules to fit the project. Use when a bug report comes in, when a previous fix did not work, or when the request is vague.

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。

Master systematic debugging techniques, profiling tools, and root cause analysis to efficiently track down bugs across any codebase or technology stack. Use when investigating bugs, performance issues, or unexpected behavior.

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。

Pre-implementation confidence assessment (≥90% required). Use before starting any implementation to verify readiness with duplicate check, architecture compliance, official docs verification, OSS references, and root cause identification.

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。

Generates a structured Bug Fix Brief (BFB) to document issue corrections. Includes root cause analysis, repro steps, fix options, and fix checklist. Use when user asks to create a BFB, document a bug fix, or generate a bug correction document.

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。

Post-mortem analysis when a client churns. Takes client history, engagement data, support tickets, usage logs, and exit feedback to produce a comprehensive churn autopsy with root cause classification, timeline of decline, and preventive measures.

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。

Guides privacy audit report writing including executive summary drafting, findings classification (critical, high, medium, low), evidence referencing, root cause analysis documentation, recommendation formulation, management response tracking, and report distribution protocols. Covers report structure from scope definition through appendices and sign-off. Keywords: audit report, findings documentation, executive summary, recommendations, report structure, privacy audit deliverables.

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。

PL (Project Lead) role sub-skill for incident analysis and process evaluation. Loaded through the pl core routing table, or when the owner explicitly asks for a retrospective or root-cause write-up; NEVER auto-load from ambient 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。

Use when analyzing failures, outages, incidents, or negative outcomes, conducting blameless postmortems, documenting root causes with 5 Whys or fishbone diagrams, identifying corrective actions with owners and timelines, learning from near-misses, establishing prevention strategies, or when user mentions postmortem, incident review, failure analysis, RCA, lessons learned, or after-action 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。

Runs an evidence-based investigation of a bug, failure, or unexpected behavior with investigate and publishes the resulting investigation report to a user-specified Confluence location. Use when the user wants something debugged, diagnosed, or root-caused AND the findings posted to a Confluence space or page. Requires a configured Atlassian MCP server. Does not investigate to a local file only — use investigate. 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 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。

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。

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。

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。

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。