بنقرة واحدة
sentry-triage
// Use when triaging production bugs from Sentry, debugging unresolved issues, or when asked to check Sentry for errors
// Use when triaging production bugs from Sentry, debugging unresolved issues, or when asked to check Sentry for errors
| name | sentry-triage |
| description | Use when triaging production bugs from Sentry, debugging unresolved issues, or when asked to check Sentry for errors |
Automatically triage the highest-impact unresolved Sentry issues using systematic root cause analysis. Filters out user-specific flukes, writes a plan for real bugs, reproduces them with tests, and fixes them.
Core principle: Find root cause before attempting fixes. Never ship a fix without a failing test first.
Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.
cellmhttps://de.sentry.ioclientYou MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
mcp__sentry__list_issues(
organizationSlug='cellm',
regionUrl='https://de.sentry.io',
projectSlugOrId='client',
query='is:unresolved',
sort='freq',
limit=5
)
Present the issues to the user as a numbered list with:
Pick the highest-impact issue (most frequent + most users affected). Present your choice and reasoning. Ask the user to confirm or pick a different one.
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
mcp__sentry__get_sentry_resource(
resourceType='issue',
organizationSlug='cellm',
resourceId='<issue-short-id>'
)
mcp__sentry__list_issue_events(
issueId='<issue-short-id>',
organizationSlug='cellm',
regionUrl='https://de.sentry.io',
limit=5
)
mcp__sentry__analyze_issue_with_seer(
organizationSlug='cellm',
regionUrl='https://de.sentry.io',
issueId='<issue-short-id>'
)
Read the error messages and stack traces carefully. Don't skip past them.
Trace backward through the call chain to find the original trigger. Don't stop at where the error appears - trace up until you find the source. Read the actual source files in the codebase at each level of the stack.
Check recent changes that could have caused the issue (git log, git diff).
After investigation, classify the issue into one of two categories:
Issues caused by the user's specific environment that we cannot and should not fix in code. Examples:
If Category A:
STOP. Present your findings to the user:
I believe this issue is user-specific and should be marked as resolved without a code change.
**Issue:** <title>
**Evidence:** <what you found in the events/stack trace>
**Why it's environmental:** <specific reasoning - e.g., "All 3 events come from the same user,
the error is a file permission denied on a path specific to their machine">
**Impact of fixing in code:** This would affect all users unnecessarily.
Should I mark this as resolved in Sentry?
Wait for the user to confirm before marking as resolved.
The issue is caused by a defect in our code that affects or could affect any user.
If Category B: Proceed to Phase 4.
State your hypothesis clearly:
Identify what evidence would confirm or reject the hypothesis:
Present hypothesis to the user for validation before proceeding.
REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Invoke superpowers:writing-plans to create a plan.
The plan should cover:
Write a failing test that reproduces the bug based on the hypothesis
Run the test to confirm it fails (RED)
Write the minimal fix that makes the test pass
Run the test to confirm it passes (GREEN)
Run the full test suite to confirm no regressions
The plan validates the hypothesis: if the test fails as predicted, the hypothesis is confirmed. If the test passes unexpectedly, the hypothesis is rejected - return to Phase 4 with new information.
REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Invoke superpowers:executing-plans to execute the plan task by task.
After the fix is verified:
If you catch yourself:
ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 2.
When writing tests for Sentry issues:
ConfigureServices DI setup, only mock Excel-dependent servicesAssert.Fail, never skip silentlydotnet format before suggesting a commit| Phase | Key Activity | Gate |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Load Issues | Fetch top 5, pick highest impact | User confirms issue choice |
| 2. Investigate | Stack traces, events, source code | Understand WHAT and WHY |
| 3. Classify | Environmental vs real bug | User confirms classification |
| 4. Hypothesis | State root cause theory | User validates hypothesis |
| 5. Plan | Use writing-plans skill | Plan reviewed |
| 6. Execute | Use executing-plans skill | Tests pass, no regressions |
| 7. Wrap Up | Suggest commit, resolve issue | User commits |