本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

bug-triage

Use when drafting a bug or defect ticket, reviewing one someone else wrote, or deciding whether a reported problem is ready to file. Keeps what the reporter actually saw separate from what the agent later found out, so a reader can tell which lines are testimony and which are collected proof. Trigger phrases: 'file a bug', 'write up this defect', 'triage this report', 'is this ticket ready to file', 'what did the reporter actually see'.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Bug Triage

A bug ticket mixes two different kinds of content: what someone reported seeing, and what an agent went and checked afterward. Once those two get written into the same paragraph, a later reader (Builder, the verifier, Architect re-checking the ticket weeks on) can no longer tell which line is testimony and which line is proof — and a wrong guess buried in the middle reads exactly as confident as a confirmed fact next to it. This skill keeps them in two named blocks so neither one borrows the other's certainty.

Before writing anything: check for duplicates

Search the tracker's open and closed issues for the same symptom before drafting a new ticket. A duplicate filed fresh costs more than the few minutes a search takes, and a reporter's exact wording is often the fastest way to find the earlier thread.

Block 1: Observation

The reporter's own account, unedited in meaning. Capture:

  • who saw it, and in what environment (version, URL, role, data state)
  • what they expected versus what actually happened
  • how often it occurs (always, intermittently, once) and whether they tried to reproduce it
  • their own words for severity or impact, if they gave one

Never add to this block: reproduction steps the reporter didn't give, a guessed cause, a proposed fix, or an impact statement the reporter didn't make. If the reporter couldn't reproduce it, the Observation block says so plainly — "reporter could not reproduce on retry" is a complete, filable observation. No evidence beats padded evidence: inventing steps to make the report look more complete is worse than leaving a gap marked as a gap.

Block 2: Evidence

Everything the agent checked afterward, as a list of dated, sourced findings — never folded back into Block 1. Each entry records:

  • the exact command or read-only query run (never a mutating command, to avoid changing the state under investigation)
  • when it was run, and against which commit or deployed version
  • the output excerpt that was actually read
  • what that output does and does not support — stated as its own line, not left implied

A guess about cause still belongs here, but only labelled as a hypothesis, never stated as settled. "Hypothesis: the retry loop in X is the likely cause, not yet confirmed by Y" is a valid entry; "the retry loop in X causes this" without a label is not.

Asking the reporter questions

Ask only questions whose answer would change the ticket's content or its priority. Batch every pre-flight question into one message rather than trickling them out one at a time, and do not re-ask something already answered earlier in the same thread.

Worked example

## Observation
Reported by: alex (Slack), staging environment, admin role.
Expected: clicking "export" downloads a CSV within a few seconds.
Actual: the button spins indefinitely; no file ever appears.
Frequency: happened twice today; alex did not try to reproduce further.

## Evidence
- `grep -n "export" src/routes/admin.ts` (2026-10-09, commit a1b2c3d) — the export route
  calls `generateCsv()` with no timeout and no error handling; output excerpt shows the call
  is awaited with nothing downstream to catch a rejection. Supports a stuck-promise theory;
  does not confirm `generateCsv()` itself is the failing call.
- Hypothesis (unconfirmed): `generateCsv()` hangs on large result sets — not yet checked
  against a reproduction with a known-large dataset.

Relationship to other skills

  • debugging-and-error-recovery root-causes a defect once someone has to fix it — reproduce, localize, reduce, fix, guard, verify. This skill only shapes how the report leading into that process is written; it does not reproduce, diagnose, or fix anything itself.
  • ticket-lifecycle-mode / Root Before Repair in agent-foundations still govern when a fix may be proposed and how the ticket moves through states. This skill does not change either — a well-shaped Observation/Evidence ticket still needs a confirmed root cause before any fix is proposed.

Out of scope

Rewriting existing tickets into this shape, GitHub issue template changes, and automated evidence-collection tooling are not covered here — apply this shape going forward, by hand, when drafting or reviewing a bug ticket.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Universal guardrails loaded by every agent. Defines Verify Before Reporting (VBR), Write-Ahead Log (WAL), and the security baseline. Always-on, role-independent.

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。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Use when: architecture mode, architect this, ADR, C4, PlantUML, system boundary, design decision, PRD gap, high ambiguity, multiple technical approaches, security architecture, data architecture, integration risk, implementability gap, story ticket, or epic ticket.

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。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Use when: assumptions audit, audit assumptions, check for hidden assumptions, plan/ticket has ambiguous scope edges, pre-flight before finalizing a ticket, unstated assumptions, or 'what am I assuming'. Surfaces unstated assumptions, ambiguous scope edges, and untested preconditions in a finished plan/ticket/ADR before it is handed to Builder. Optional pass — Architect judges when to apply it; not a mandatory gate on every ticket.

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。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Use when: Tester needs UI state evidence for VBR, or Builder needs to verify an integration wire is observable end-to-end. Powered by agent-browser MCP — token-efficient browser automation (200–400 tokens/page).

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。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.

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。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Writing skill for freelancers and independent consultants. Covers project proposals, bids, client emails, and scope summaries. Leads with the client's problem, not the consultant's background.

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。

Agistra/agistra.dev52026年10月14日 更新

Agistra のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する