Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Diagnose instruction defects and optionally submit Rosetta GitHub issue
<post_mortem>
<core_concepts>
All Rosetta prep steps MUST be FULLY completed, load-project-context skill loaded and fully executed
Reviews the ENTIRE harness that produced the outcome — user prompt · workspace files (docs/rules/plans/memory) · repo-local instructions/config · Rosetta instructions (skills/agents/workflows/rules) · tooling — NOT the user's artifact.
Root cause, not symptoms: the defect is in the harness, not the artifact it produced. Fix = GENERALIZED, REUSABLE preventive rule — not an incident-specific patch.
Attribute every defect to a layer: prompt | workspace files | local config | Rosetta instruction | tooling. Most failures are local; do NOT default to blaming Rosetta.
Tone: direct, blunt, harsh on defects — no sugarcoating, hedging, or diplomatic filler. Call broken prompts, files, and instructions broken. Critique the harness, never people.
2 phases, hard gate between: ① post-mortem report with recommendations per layer → ② GitHub issue to griddynamics/rosetta, offered ONLY when a defect is attributed to Rosetta instructions. ② NEVER starts without explicit opt-in.
Submission MUST be sanctioned: question/suggestion/edit/"fix it" = review ≠ approval. Unclear answer ≠ "no" → ASK AGAIN directly. Re-asking is allowed and expected; unsanctioned submitting is not.
Issue is PUBLIC: Rosetta instruction feedback ONLY · zero target-repo IP/data. Anonymized.
Outputs are required as checkpoints and to finalize thinking and to prevent failures we saw in practice.
Collect evidence from available context only: request · instructions used · workspace files read · tool calls · retries · blockers · artifacts · output. Run not in context → ask for it; NEVER invent history.
OUTPUT evidence inventory — available vs missing. ONLY THEN proceed.
OUTPUT candidate issue list — one line each, suspected layer. ONLY THEN proceed.
Take ONE candidate: drill to ROOT CAUSE and attribute the layer: symptom → which prompt phrase / file section / instruction line caused it → why (ambiguity/gap/contradiction/missing gate/stale data). Quote the source; state expected vs actual behavior. Ambiguous → ask 1-3 clarifying questions, do not guess.
OUTPUT that candidate's verdict — root cause + verbatim proofs, confirmed or dropped. ONLY THEN take the next candidate: repeat 5-6 until none remain.
ONLY AFTER all candidates concluded: convert each confirmed root cause into a generalized preventive change: local layers → concrete edit the user should make (exact file/section + proposed content); Rosetta layer → instruction change proposal (exact file/section + proposed rule + failure mode prevented).
OUTPUT recommended changes per layer. ONLY THEN proceed.
Store generalized rules in AGENT MEMORY.md (init if missing): what worked and what failed — logically, architecturally, technically. Concise, organized, reusable.
OUTPUT final report via template — assembled ONLY from steps 2/4/6/8 outputs, no new findings. Material/recurring issues only; uncertain → label low-confidence. RECOMMEND local fixes to the user; apply NOTHING.
② GitHub issue (only if ≥1 defect attributed to Rosetta instructions; otherwise state "nothing Rosetta-attributable" and stop):
GATE A: ask directly — "File the Rosetta-attributed finding(s) as a GitHub issue to griddynamics/rosetta?" Clear no → stop ②. Unclear/partial answer → RE-ASK directly until clear yes/no. NEVER proceed on silence or assumption.
ONLY AFTER a clear yes: sanitize — strip ALL target-repo IP and sensitive data — code · file contents/names · business logic · product/client/company names · internal URLs/hosts/datasets · usernames · emails · tickets · secrets/credentials/tokens/keys · PII · etc. Unavoidable refs → <project>, <file>. Keep: Rosetta component, release, IDE/agent, model.
OUTPUT COMPLETE draft verbatim — final title + body, fenced — with sanitization checklist result. ONLY THEN proceed.
GATE B: submit ONLY when sanctioned by the exact sentence Submit the issue as drafted. Question → answer it, then RE-ASK. Comment/edit → revise → re-OUTPUT full draft → RE-ASK. Unclear → ask directly "Approve submission, or revise?". Loop until sanctioned or declined.
ONLY AFTER sanction: submit — gh issue create --repo griddynamics/rosetta --title <t> --body <b>. gh missing/unauthed → hand user the draft + https://github.com/griddynamics/rosetta/issues/new; NO other channels.
Every defect attributed to a layer (prompt | workspace files | local config | Rosetta instruction | tooling) with the exact source quoted — fixable without the transcript.
Every recommendation is a generalized preventive rule with the failure mode it prevents — not an incident note.
Local defects → recommendations to the user only; nothing applied, nothing fixed.
Generalized rules stored in AGENT MEMORY.md.
② offered only for Rosetta-attributed defects, and entered only after a clear "yes" at GATE A; unclear answers were re-asked, not assumed.
Full final draft shown verbatim BEFORE submit; user typed the exact GATE B sentence.
Draft: zero target-repo code/paths/names/URLs/credentials/business context.
</validation_checklist>
Attributing every failure to Rosetta — bad prompts, stale workspace files, and local config break runs more often.
User question or wording suggestion on the draft → treated as approval + submitted. It is review; answer/revise → RE-ASK.
Unclear user reply → treated as "no" and silently dropped, or as "yes" and submitted. Both wrong: ask directly again.
User asked to FIX something → fixing AND silently submitting an issue. Fix = separate task; submission still needs both gates.
Reporting the symptom (bad artifact) instead of the harness root cause that produced it.
Storing incident notes instead of generalizable rules.
Softening findings to sound polite → real defects read as minor and get deprioritized.
IP leaks via "harmless" details: repo names in paths · error messages containing code · URLs in tool output.
Post-mortem report:
## Post-Mortem**Component:** {skill|agent|workflow|prompt|file} · **Release:** {r2|r3} · **Delivery:** {MCP|plugin} · **IDE/agent:** {name} · **Model:** {id}
**Task:** {one line} · **Outcome:** {completed | partial | blocked}
**Issues** (repeat per issue)
P{0-3} — {title}
- Layer: {prompt | workspace files | local config | Rosetta instruction | tooling}
- Trigger: {minimal repro — request paraphrase + preconditions}
- Source: {prompt phrase / file section / instruction line — quoted}
- Expected vs actual: {intent vs what agent did}
- Root cause: {ambiguity | gap | contradiction | missing gate | stale data — why}
- Reasons: {terse: why AI concluded this is the root cause — verbatim proof quotes from prompt/instructions/files/output}
- Frequency: {always | intermittent | once} · Workaround: {if any}
**Recommended Changes**- Local (user applies): {exact file/section + proposed content + failure mode prevented}
- Rosetta (issue candidate): {exact instruction file/section + proposed generalized rule + failure mode prevented}
**Confidence:** {High|Medium|Low} — {why}
