跳到正文
cccskills
OpenClaw 官方免费在 GitHub 公开

convex-self-heal

Investigate Convex production errors, prepare fixes on a branch, and verify them before opening a pull request for human review. After an approved deployment, check whether the same error recurs. Never automatically merge changes or deploy to production.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

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.

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Investigating recurring production errors
  • Preparing verified fixes for code or schema defects
  • Checking data changes against a production snapshot
  • Confirming errors stop after deployment

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md5.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

<!-- GENERATED from convex-agents content/capabilities/self-heal.json — do not edit by hand. -->

Gated production self-healing loop

Sentry/Datadog/Vercel can go error→investigate→draft-PR, but they treat the backend as opaque and stop at the human merge gate with an unverified diff. Convex can do the step they can't: because the error rows live in the user's own deployment and the fix can be rehearsed on a preview of that deployment, the platform certifies the fix against real invariants before anyone reviews it. This capability is the composition capstone — it wires sentinel (capture) → the findings bus (diagnose) → the fixers (repair) → migrate-rehearse/tsc/probe (certify) → a human PR (decide) → deploy-guard (promote). The human keeps the merge button; the machine does everything up to and including proving the fix works.

Workflow

  1. GUARD: deploy-guard — this loop reads prod and PROPOSES prod changes; classify + announce the deployment and get the standing consent for the loop's scope up front (what classes of fix it may auto-prepare vs must always defer). Never auto-merge; the human merge is the fixed boundary.
  2. CAPTURE: require sentinel (prod errors in the user's own deployment, redacted at write time). If absent, offer to install it and stop — there is nothing to heal without capture.
  3. TRIAGE a new/ recurring error: pull it via the official MCP (data/run-once-query over the sentinel table, or the monitor's prod_error event). Classify: transient (retry/ignore — do NOT open a PR for a one-off network blip), config (env/secret — hand to env, never guess a secret), or a code/schema defect (proceed).
  4. ROOT-CAUSE on the findings bus: run the relevant audit pass on the implicated function — convex-insights (the failing requests + stacks), convex-advisor (if it's a read-limit/OCC cause), convex-reviewer/convex-authz (if it's a logic/authz defect). Produce a bus finding with evidence (the stack + the reproducing input) and a fixCapability. If root cause is unclear, STOP and report — a wrong fix is worse than an open error.
  5. REPAIR via the finding's fixCapability (convex-authz, reviewer fixers, convex-expert for perf) on a branch — never on prod directly.
  6. CERTIFY against the backend's own invariants BEFORE proposing (this is the differentiator — do not skip any that apply): (a) tsc --noEmit clean; (b) if the fix touches schema/data, run it through migrate-rehearse on a preview seeded with a prod snapshot — the schema-conformance gate must pass on real-shaped data; (c) reproduce-then-confirm-gone: replay the error's triggering input against the fixed code (a convex-test case or an MCP run on the preview) and assert the failure no longer occurs; (d) no-regression: the finding must be gone AND no new bus finding introduced on the touched function. A fix that fails any applicable certification is NOT proposed — it's reported as 'attempted, could not certify' with what failed.
  7. PROPOSE, never merge: open a PR (or a diff for review) containing the fix, the certification evidence (tsc result, rehearsal outcome, the reproduced-then-gone assertion), the original error + finding, and the reversibility note. Label the change class. The human reviews and merges.
  8. PROMOTE on merge via deploy-guard's prod consent; after deploy, re-check the sentinel table + logs (failures) to confirm that error signature stops recurring (do NOT use insights for this — it tracks only OCC/read-limit perf events, not arbitrary error signatures) — the loop is only closed when the error stops recurring in prod. If it recurs, reopen with the new evidence.
  9. BOUND it: only classes the user pre-approved in step 1 are auto-prepared (default-safe set: validator fixes, missing-index adds, ownership-check adds, non-destructive backfills); anything destructive, security-sensitive beyond an added check, or ambiguous is always deferred to explicit human direction. Log every action to an append-only record so the loop is auditable.

Rules

  • The human keeps the merge button — this loop prepares and certifies fixes, it NEVER auto-merges or auto-deploys to prod (matches the industry boundary: no credible system ships unattended prod auto-merge).
  • Certify before proposing: tsc + (schema→migrate-rehearse on a prod-snapshot preview) + reproduce-then-confirm-the-failure-is-gone + no new bus finding. An uncertified fix is reported as 'could not certify', never proposed as done.
  • Triage first: transient blips get retried/ignored, config errors go to env (never guess a secret), only real code/schema defects enter the repair loop.
  • Repair on a branch/preview, never on prod directly; promote only through deploy-guard's fresh prod consent.
  • Only pre-approved fix classes are auto-prepared (default-safe: validator/index/ownership/non-destructive backfill); destructive or ambiguous changes are always deferred to the human.
  • Close the loop for real: after merge+deploy, confirm the error signature stops recurring via the sentinel table + logs (not insights, which only sees perf events); reopen if it persists.
  • Every action is logged to an append-only, auditable record; data residency stays in the user's own deployment (sentinel discipline).
  • If root cause is unclear, STOP and report — an uncertain fix is worse than an open, visible error.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

autoreview

OpenClaw 官方免费

Review code using shared OpenClaw instructions and a Python helper, while also following the target repository’s review requirements. This skill points to a common installation that supplies the actual review procedure.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Reviewing code with shared OpenClaw instructions
  • Applying repository-specific review requirements
  • Keeping shared review instructions up to date
openclaw/clawhub95262026年10月21日 更新

axiom-alerting

OpenClaw 官方免费

Create and manage Axiom alert rules and notification destinations through its API. Connect alerts to email, Slack, or webhooks, check monitor history, and adjust thresholds and evaluation schedules to address excessive or missing alerts.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Set up error alerts and notification destinations
  • Tune monitors that send too many alerts
  • Investigate monitors that never trigger
openclaw/clawhub95262026年10月21日 更新

axiom-sre

OpenClaw 官方免费

Investigate production incidents and bugs using logs, metrics, and code evidence. The skill guides hypothesis testing, root cause analysis, fix validation, and reusable investigation notes, with access to configured observability tools such as Axiom.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Investigate production outages and rising error rates
  • Trace causes using logs, metrics, and code
  • Reproduce bugs and validate minimal fixes
openclaw/clawhub95262026年10月21日 更新

building-dashboards

OpenClaw 官方免费

Design and build Axiom dashboards from logs or metrics, the numerical measurements of system behavior. Create charts, filters, and layouts for monitoring and reporting, or migrate existing Splunk and Grafana panels while validating queries against available data.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Build a service health monitoring dashboard
  • Create interactive filters for investigating logs
  • Migrate dashboards from Splunk or Grafana
openclaw/clawhub95262026年10月21日 更新

Drafts, previews, sends, and records emails for existing ClawHub content rights cases. It supports publisher removal notices and requester updates, requires approval of the final draft, and preserves the exact correspondence in the case record.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Preparing a skill removal notice for a publisher
  • Sending a requester a progress update or closure note
  • Preserving sent correspondence in an existing rights case
openclaw/clawhub95262026年10月21日 更新

clawhub-convex

OpenClaw 官方免费

Apply ClawHub-specific rules when developing with Convex, including deployment targeting, runtime checks, data migrations, search performance, and skill statistics. It also directs specialized work to the appropriate companion skills.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Changing Convex functions or schemas
  • Planning production data migrations
  • Reviewing search query performance
openclaw/clawhub95262026年10月21日 更新

查看 openclaw 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题