跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

file-issue

将零散的故障或需求整理成可执行的 Linear 事项,补充复现步骤、影响范围和证据,检查是否重复,并在获得确认后创建。

原文查看原文说明

Turn a rough report into a Linear issue someone can pick up — reproduce the claim, check for duplicates, and fill in team, priority, and labels. Use when the user says to file, open, or create an issue, hands over a bug report or error, or asks to get something into Linear.

ParadevAI/Paradev星标 15,720(GitHub 15,720 + cccskills 0)
集成工具Linear

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 把模糊的故障报告整理成事项
  • 查找同一问题的已有报告
  • 整理复现步骤和证据
  • 确认团队和优先级后提交

中文介绍

功能

此技能将零散的故障报告或需求整理成可供负责人着手处理的 Linear 事项。它会分别用错误文本和功能名称搜索已有事项,并在条件允许时核实报告中的现象。事项内容会按可观察到的情况、编号复现步骤、预期与实际结果、影响范围和证据进行整理,并将推测与事实分开。它还会整理负责团队、优先级和标签。

适用场景

当需要交接“搜索坏了”这类含糊报告,或要把错误日志登记到 Linear 时,可以使用此技能。它会检查是否已有重复事项,帮助避免将同一问题分开跟踪。

使用示例

  • “把这份故障报告整理成 Linear 事项。”
  • “检查这个错误是否已经有人报告。”
  • “整理复现步骤和影响范围,并先给我看登记草案。”

注意事项

此技能使用 Linear 集成工具。创建前会展示标题、正文、团队、优先级和标签,供使用者确认。如果发现重复事项,也会先展示匹配结果和拟添加的证据评论,确认后才发布。无法判断负责团队时会先询问;如果尚未充分了解修复内容,则不设置估算值。

本介绍由 AI(OpenAI Codex)根据公开的 SKILL.md 撰写。准确的规格请查看下方原文。

文档检查

AI 根据 SKILL.md 的内容检查了需要注意的操作和使用前提。评分只依据实际运行的结果(实测对比)。

安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
A良好创建事项或发布重复事项评论前都要求确认。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
B部分不足需要 Linear 集成工具,但未说明连接方法。

不计入评分。 由 AI(OpenAI Codex)于 2026年10月29日 评估。仅供参考,安装前请同时查看原文。

如果您认为评估有误,请申请复核

请写明哪一项有误以及原因。无需登录。我们会对照 SKILL.md 重新评估,并在此处更新结果。

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

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md3.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

File an issue worth picking up

An issue is a handoff to someone who was not in this conversation. The test is whether they can start without asking you a question.

1. Search before you create

Search for the error text and for the feature name separately — people describe the same bug in words that share no vocabulary. Check closed issues too, but do not read "closed" as "regression": most closed duplicates were closed during triage, not fixed. Call it a regression only when the issue shows a fix that shipped, or it was reopened — then it is a more urgent and differently-shaped report than a new bug.

Found a duplicate? Comment the new evidence on it instead of opening a second issue. Show the user the duplicate you matched and the comment you intend to leave, and post it only once they say to. A wrong match buries a real bug under an unrelated issue, and nobody goes looking for what they think is already tracked.

2. Establish what actually happens

The report you were handed is a symptom filtered through someone's theory of the cause. Separate the two. Write down what was observed, and mark anything you inferred as inferred.

Where you can check the claim, check it. An issue that says "search is broken" and an issue that says "search returns no results for queries with an apostrophe, verified on staging" have very different lifespans.

3. Write the body in the order it gets read

  1. What happens — one sentence, observable, no diagnosis.
  2. Steps — numbered, starting from a state the reader can reach.
  3. Expected vs actual — both stated, even when the difference seems obvious.
  4. Scope — who and how many are affected, and since when.
  5. Evidence — the error, the log line, the request id. Attach rather than paste anything long.

Put the diagnosis last if you have one, marked as a guess. A confident wrong cause at the top of an issue sends the assignee down it before they read the steps.

4. Route it

Resolve the team from the area the bug lives in, not from who reported it. If you cannot tell, ask rather than guessing — a misrouted issue sits until someone triages it by hand.

Priority is about consequence, not annoyance: data loss and broken auth are urgent, a misaligned button is not, however visible. Set an estimate only if you understand the fix well enough to defend it; a wrong estimate is worse than none.

5. Show it before you create it

Print the title, body, team, priority, and labels, and ask the user to confirm. Filing is a write to a shared backlog that other people triage and get notified about; a misrouted or duplicate issue costs someone else's attention to undo. Reporting the result afterwards is not confirmation — by then the write has happened.

Once they confirm, create it and report the identifier and URL along with what you set, so a routing mistake gets corrected immediately rather than after it goes unread for a week.

Anti-patterns

  • Titles like "Bug in search" or "App broken". The title is what people scan; make it the one-sentence symptom.
  • Pasting a whole stack trace as the body. Lead with the failure, attach the trace.
  • Filing the theory instead of the symptom. When the theory is wrong the issue becomes unfindable by anyone hitting the actual bug.

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

10x

免费有简介

检查 Superset 的使用情况,找出适合当前工作方式但尚未使用的功能,给出建议并介绍选项;用户选定后,可协助设置定时运行、并行工作区或共享任务等功能。

  • 查找尚未使用的 Superset 功能
  • 设置定时运行的智能体
  • 在多个工作区并行处理任务
ParadevAI/Paradev1.6万2026年10月29日 更新

automate

免费有简介

把重复任务配置为 Superset 自动化,整理智能体指令、定时或事件触发条件及运行工作区。经明确确认后创建设置,检查已保存的条件,并查看首次运行结果以调整指令。

  • 按日或按周运行任务
  • GitHub 新建拉取请求时启动任务
  • 收到 Slack 指定表情反应时触发
ParadevAI/Paradev1.6万2026年10月29日 更新

browser

免费有简介

通过 Superset 工作区的浏览器查看网页、点击、输入并检查截图或控制台信息,可用于预览运行中的网页应用、检查界面操作和表单流程。

  • 预览本地网页应用
  • 截取页面图像
  • 查看控制台错误
ParadevAI/Paradev1.6万2026年10月29日 更新

依据 Stripe 官方文档和 API 参数定义实现支付、订阅、发票及 Webhook 集成,涵盖产品选择、沙盒测试和事件处理,并通过 Webhook 判断支付与订阅状态。

  • 选择定期扣费产品
  • 实现 Checkout 或发票处理
  • 排查行为异常的 Stripe 集成
ParadevAI/Paradev1.6万2026年10月29日 更新

cdp-verification

免费有简介

通过 Chrome DevTools Protocol 操作正在运行的 Electron 桌面应用,复现界面问题并验证修改。按实际操作流程检查页面跳转,记录截图,并对照路由、滚动位置、焦点元素和保存状态等信息。

  • 在运行中的应用里复现界面问题
  • 检查修复后的页面行为
  • 验证包含页面跳转的操作流程
ParadevAI/Paradev1.6万2026年10月29日 更新

ci-triage

免费有简介

分析 GitHub Actions 失败日志,定位最早的有效错误,区分代码缺陷、环境问题、间歇性失败和原有故障,并对照基准分支说明失败与 PR 的关系及后续处理建议。

  • 调查 PR 检查失败原因
  • 区分不稳定测试与代码缺陷
  • 确认基准分支是否已有故障
ParadevAI/Paradev1.6万2026年10月29日 更新

查看 ParadevAI 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题