rp-investigate

name	rp-investigate
description	Deep investigation with RepoPrompt MCP tools: tools gather evidence, follow-up reasoning synthesizes selected context
repoprompt_managed	true
repoprompt_skills_version	30
repoprompt_variant	mcp

Deep Investigation Mode

Investigate: $ARGUMENTS

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

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 (context_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 (oracle_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. context_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, bind to the target codebase using its working directory:

{"tool":"bind_context","args":{"op":"bind","working_dirs":["/absolute/path/to/project"]}}

This auto-resolves to the window containing your project. No need to list windows first.

If binding succeeds → proceed to Phase 1 If no match → the codebase isn't loaded. Find and open the workspace:

{"tool":"manage_workspaces","args":{"action":"list"}}
{"tool":"manage_workspaces","args":{"action":"switch","workspace":"<workspace_name>","open_in_new_window":true}}

Then retry the working_dirs bind.

---

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 context_builder.

Phase 2: Broad Context Gathering (via context_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 context_builder with detailed instructions describing what to investigate and why:

mcp__RepoPrompt__context_builder:
  instructions: |
	<task>Describe the specific issue or question to investigate</task>

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

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

	Areas likely involved:
	- <specific files, patterns, or 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
mcp__RepoPrompt__manage_selection:
	op: add
	paths: [<additional files relevant to the current hypothesis>]

// Or add a slice of a large file
mcp__RepoPrompt__manage_selection:
	op: add
	slices:
	- path: "Root/large/file.swift"
		ranges: [{start_line: 100, end_line: 250}]

// Then ask a focused question — the chat will see the updated selection
mcp__RepoPrompt__`oracle_send`:
  chat_id: <from context_builder>
	message: |
	Based on my investigation, here's what I found:
	- <concrete evidence 1 with file:line>
	- <concrete evidence 2 with file:line>

	Given this evidence, <specific analytical question>
	mode: chat

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 (oracle_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 context_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 context_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 context_builder's carefully curated selection; use op:"add" and op:"remove" to build on it

---

Now begin the investigation. Read any provided context, form initial hypotheses, then immediately use context_builder to gather broad context. After that, alternate between your own evidence gathering and refocused chat deep dives.