القائمة
Executes diagnostic investigation tasks to test debugging hypotheses. Runs tests, traces execution, checks git history, and reports evidence. (converted from agent)
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | bug-investigator |
| description | Executes diagnostic investigation tasks to test debugging hypotheses. Runs tests, traces execution, checks git history, and reports evidence. (converted from agent) |
| dependencies | [] |
When invoked, perform the following diagnostic investigation tasks: test a specific hypothesis about a bug by gathering evidence. This skill investigates and reports findings — it does NOT fix bugs.
Given a hypothesis about a bug's root cause:
Follow the execution path to understand what actually happens:
Run targeted commands to observe behavior:
# Run the specific failing test in isolation
pytest -xvs path/to/test_file.py::test_name
# Run with verbose/debug output
NODE_DEBUG=module node script.js
# Check exit codes
command; echo "Exit code: $?"
Use version control to understand when and why:
# Who last changed the relevant code
git blame path/to/file.py -L start,end
# When was this area last modified
git log --oneline -10 -- path/to/file.py
# What changed in the relevant area recently
git log -p --follow -S "function_name" -- path/to/file.py
# Find the commit that introduced the bug
git bisect start
git bisect bad HEAD
git bisect good <known-good-commit>
Verify the runtime environment:
# Check environment variables
env | grep RELEVANT_PREFIX
# Verify file permissions
ls -la path/to/file
# Check running processes
ps aux | grep process_name
# Verify dependency versions
pip show package_name
npm list package_name
Examine actual vs expected data:
Report your findings in this format:
## Investigation Report
### Hypothesis Tested
[Restate the hypothesis you were asked to test]
### Verdict: Confirmed / Rejected / Inconclusive
### Evidence
#### Supporting Evidence
- [Concrete observation 1 with file:line references]
- [Concrete observation 2 with command output]
#### Contradicting Evidence
- [Any evidence that weakens the hypothesis]
### Key Findings
1. [Most important finding]
2. [Second finding]
3. [Third finding]
### Code References
| File | Lines | Observation |
|------|-------|-------------|
| path/to/file.py | 42-58 | Description of what this code does wrong |
### Recommendations
- [Suggested next investigation step if inconclusive]
- [Suggested fix direction if confirmed]
- [Related areas to check for similar issues]
What this component does: Tests specific debugging hypotheses by gathering evidence through code tracing, diagnostic testing, git history analysis, and data inspection, then reports structured findings.
Capabilities needed:
Origin: Converted from agent bug-investigator — originally invoked as a sub-agent
Complexity hint: Originally ran on a sonnet model
Original tool scope: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, SendMessage, TaskUpdate, TaskGet, TaskList
Adaptation guidance:
Provides Mermaid diagram syntax, best practices, and styling rules for technical visualizations. Use when creating diagrams, flowcharts, sequence diagrams, class diagrams, state diagrams, ER diagrams, architecture diagrams, C4 diagrams, visualizations, or any visual documentation in markdown. Always use this skill when generating or updating Mermaid code blocks.
Documentation management workflow for MkDocs sites and standalone markdown files — initialize, generate, update docs, and create change summaries. Use when asked to "create docs", "write README", "update documentation", "generate docs site", "write CONTRIBUTING", "manage documentation", or "docs changelog".
Conduct an adaptive interactive interview on any topic and produce a structured markdown report, summary, or implementation plan. Use when the user says "interview me", "interview me about", "run an interview on", "help me think through", or wants guided discovery on any subject. Also triggers on "talk me through", "explore X with me", "help me plan Y", or "walk me through my thinking on Z" when the user wants a guided conversation rather than a direct answer. Applies broadly — career decisions, project ideas, product direction, personal goals, research questions, team problems — not just technical topics.
Analyze an existing spec for inconsistencies, missing information, ambiguities, and structure issues. Use when user says "analyze spec", "review spec", "spec quality check", "validate requirements", "audit spec", or "check spec quality".
Provides architectural pattern knowledge for designing feature implementations including MVC, event-driven, microservices, and CQRS patterns. Use when designing system architecture or choosing implementation patterns.
Systematic, hypothesis-driven debugging workflow with triage-based track routing. Use when asked to "fix this bug", "debug this", "why is this failing", "this is broken", "investigate this error", "track down this issue", or any debugging situation. Supports --deep flag to force full investigation.