rp-investigate-cli

name	rp-investigate-cli
description	Deep investigation with rp-cli commands: tools gather evidence, follow-up reasoning synthesizes selected context
repoprompt_managed	true
repoprompt_skills_version	29
repoprompt_variant	cli

Deep Investigation Mode (CLI)

Investigate: $ARGUMENTS

You are now in deep investigation mode for the issue described above. Follow this protocol rigorously.

Using rp-cli

This workflow uses rp-cli (RepoPrompt CLI) instead of MCP tool calls. Run commands via:

rp-cli -e '<command>'

Quick reference:

MCP Tool	CLI Command
get_file_tree	rp-cli -e 'tree'
file_search	rp-cli -e 'search "pattern"'
get_code_structure	rp-cli -e 'structure path/'
read_file	rp-cli -e 'read path/file.swift'
manage_selection	rp-cli -e 'select add path/'
context_builder	rp-cli -e 'builder "instructions" --response-type plan'
chat_send	rp-cli -e 'chat "message" --mode plan'
apply_edits	rp-cli -e 'call apply_edits {"path":"...","search":"...","replace":"..."}'
file_actions	rp-cli -e 'call file_actions {"action":"create","path":"..."}'

Chain commands with &&:

rp-cli -e 'select set src/ && context'

Use rp-cli -e 'describe <tool>' for help on a specific tool, rp-cli --tools-schema for machine-readable JSON schemas, or rp-cli --help for CLI usage.

JSON args (-j) accept inline JSON, file paths (.json auto-detected), @file, or @- (stdin). Raw newlines in strings are auto-repaired.

⚠️ TIMEOUT WARNING: The builder and chat commands can take several minutes to complete. When invoking rp-cli, set your command timeout to at least 2700 seconds (45 minutes) to avoid premature termination.

---

Investigation Protocol

This workflow leverages three complementary capabilities:

• You (the agent): Can read any file with exact line numbers, run git commands, search the codebase, run experiments, and produce concrete evidence. You can also mutate the file selection to control what the chat sees. You are the hands and eyes.
• Context Builder (builder): Explores the codebase and populates the file selection — choosing full files or slices of files relevant to the task. This is its primary output: a curated selection the chat can analyze.
• Chat (chat_send): Deep analytical reasoning over the current file selection. It sees selected files completely (full content, not summaries), but it only sees what's in the selection — nothing else. It excels at synthesizing patterns, spotting architectural issues, and forming hypotheses from the big picture. It is not a lookup tool: if a question can be answered by reading files, searching, or running git/tool calls, do that yourself first.

How File Selection Drives the Workflow

The file selection is the shared context between you, the context builder, and the chat:

1. builder populates the selection with relevant files/slices it discovers
2. The chat analyzes whatever is currently selected — it has no other view of the codebase
3. You can add or remove specific files via manage_selection to augment or refine what the chat sees
4. You can add slices of large files to supplement the selection without blowing the token budget

Important: The context builder operates with a large token budget and works hard to maximize useful context. Don't constrain it — build on its selection with targeted add/remove calls rather than replacing it.

Core Principles

1. Don't stop until confident — pursue every lead until you have solid evidence
2. Play to each tool's strengths — context builder for broad discovery, the chat for deep analysis, your own tools for precise evidence gathering
3. You produce the evidence — the chat analyzes and hypothesizes; you verify with exact file reads, git blame, searches
4. Manage the selection actively — refocus the chat on different files as the investigation narrows
5. Use tool calls for facts, chat for synthesis — resolve straightforward lookups yourself before asking for analytical help
6. Document findings as you go — create/update a report file with observations

Phase 0: Workspace Verification (REQUIRED)

Before any investigation, confirm the target codebase is loaded:

# First, list available windows to find the right one
rp-cli -e 'windows'

# Then check roots in a specific window (REQUIRED - CLI cannot auto-bind)
rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'tree --type roots'

Check the output:

• If your target root appears in a window → note the window ID and proceed to Phase 1
• If not → the codebase isn't loaded in any window

CLI Window Routing (CRITICAL):

• CLI invocations are stateless—you MUST pass -w <window_id> to target the correct window
• Use rp-cli -e 'windows' to list all open windows and their workspaces
• Always include -w <window_id> in ALL subsequent commands

---

Phase 1: Initial Assessment (Agent — you)

1. Read any provided files/reports (traces, logs, error reports)
2. Summarize the symptoms and constraints
3. Form initial hypotheses
4. Do a brief search or two if needed to orient yourself

Keep this short — save deep exploration for after builder.

Phase 2: Broad Context Gathering (via builder — REQUIRED)

⚠️ Do NOT skip this step. The context builder discovers relevant files across the codebase that you'd miss with manual searching. It populates the file selection with full files or targeted slices.

Use builder with detailed instructions describing what to investigate and why:

rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'builder "<task>Investigate: specific issue</task>

<context>
Symptoms observed:
- <symptom 1>
- <symptom 2>

Hypotheses to test:
- <theory 1>
- <theory 2>

Areas likely involved:
- <files/patterns/subsystems>
</context>
" --response-type question'

Use response_type: question so the chat immediately analyzes the gathered context and returns its initial assessment.

Phase 3: Agent Verification & Evidence Gathering (Agent — you)

The chat's response will contain hypotheses and analytical pointers. Your job is to verify them with precision:

• Read specific files the chat mentioned — check exact implementations and line numbers
• Search for patterns the chat identified — confirm they exist where expected
• Run git blame/log on suspicious areas — find when changes were introduced
• Trace data/control flow through code paths the chat flagged
• Check for edge cases the chat hypothesized about

Build a concrete evidence list: file paths, line numbers, git commits, actual code snippets.

If a factual gap can be closed with read_file, file_search, git, or another direct tool call, do that before going back to the chat.

Phase 4: Refocused Chat Deep Dives (Iterate)

Update the selection to focus the chat on what matters now, then ask targeted questions that require synthesis rather than direct lookup:

# Add files the chat hasn't seen yet
rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'select add <additional files>'

# Or add a slice of a large file
rp-cli -w <window_id> -e 'select add Root/large/file.swift:100-250'

# Ask focused question with your evidence — chat sees updated selection
rp-cli -w <window_id> -t '<tab_id>' -e 'chat "Based on my investigation:
- <evidence 1 with file:line>
- <evidence 2 with file:line>

Given this evidence, <specific question>" --mode chat'

Pass -t <tab_id> to continue the same chat conversation.

Repeat Phases 3–4 as needed, but be judicious. The chat is slow and resource-intensive — do substantial reasoning and evidence gathering on your own between calls. Don't invoke it just to ask a quick question you could answer yourself with read_file, file_search, git, or other direct tool calls. Reserve it for moments when you need deep analytical synthesis, competing explanations, or cross-file reasoning across the selected context.

Phase 5: Conclusions & Report (Agent — you)

You write the final report with precise references. The chat reasons about patterns but can't produce exact line numbers — that's your job.

Document:

• Root cause — with exact file paths, line numbers, and code snippets as evidence
• Eliminated hypotheses — and what evidence ruled them out
• Recommended fixes — specific, actionable changes with file locations
• Preventive measures — how to avoid this in future

---

Role Summary

Capability	Agent (you)	Context Builder	Chat (chat_send)
Discover relevant files broadly	❌ Limited	✅ Primary	❌
Populate file selection	❌	✅ Primary	❌
Read exact file contents & lines	✅ Primary	❌	Sees full selected files
Run git blame/log/diff	✅	❌	❌
Search across codebase	✅	✅	❌
Synthesize patterns & architecture	⚠️ OK	❌	✅ Primary
Form & refine hypotheses	⚠️ OK	❌	✅ Primary
Produce line-number evidence	✅ Primary	❌	❌
Mutate selection to refocus chat	✅	❌	❌

---

Report Template

Create a findings report as you investigate:

# Investigation: [Title]

## Summary

[1-2 sentence summary of findings]

## Symptoms

- [Observed symptom 1]
- [Observed symptom 2]

## Investigation Log

### [Phase] - [Area Investigated]

**Hypothesis:** [What you were testing]
**Findings:** [What you found]
**Evidence:** [Exact file paths, line numbers, code snippets, git commits]
**Conclusion:** [Confirmed/Eliminated/Needs more investigation]

## Root Cause

[Detailed explanation with precise evidence]

## Recommendations

1. [Fix 1 — specific file and location]
2. [Fix 2 — specific file and location]

## Preventive Measures

- [How to prevent this in future]

---

Anti-patterns to Avoid

• 🚫 CRITICAL: Skipping builder and attempting to investigate by reading files manually — you'll miss critical context
• 🚫 Skipping Phase 0 (Workspace Verification) — you must confirm the target codebase is loaded first
• 🚫 Asking the chat to produce exact line numbers — it sees full file content but without reliable line numbering; that's YOUR job
• 🚫 Doing extensive exploration (5+ tool calls) before calling builder — initial assessment should be brief
• 🚫 Drawing conclusions before gathering concrete evidence yourself
• 🚫 Not feeding your evidence back to the chat — it needs your findings to refine its analysis
• 🚫 Calling the chat repeatedly without doing your own investigation in between — do substantial work between calls
• 🚫 Invoking the chat for questions you could answer with read_file, file_search, git, or other direct tool calls — reserve it for deep analytical synthesis
• 🚫 Using manage_selection with op:"clear" or op:"set" — this undoes builder's carefully curated selection; use op:"add" and op:"remove" to build on it
• 🚫 CLI: Forgetting to pass -w <window_id> — CLI invocations are stateless and require explicit window targeting

---

Now begin the investigation. First run rp-cli -e 'windows' to find the correct window, then Read any provided context, form initial hypotheses, then immediately use builder to gather broad context. After that, alternate between your own evidence gathering and refocused chat deep dives.