ソース情報
- リポジトリ
- CodySwannGT/lisa
- ソースの最終更新活動
- 2026年7月26日 21:52
- 検出された SKILL.md の言語
- 英語
- スター
- 3
- フォーク
- 3
インストール方法
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
ソースファイルを確認
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
メニュー
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/CodySwannGT/lisa --skill lisa-reproduce-bugコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか?SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
This skill should be used for any non-trivial request — features, bugs, stories, epics, spikes, or multi-step tasks. It accepts a ticket URL (Jira, Linear, GitHub), a file path containing a spec, or a plain-text prompt. It assembles an agent team, breaks the work into structured tasks, and manages the full lifecycle from research through implementation, code review, deploy, and empirical verification.
any non-trivial request —…
This skill should be used for any non-trivial request — features, bugs, stories, epics, spikes, or multi-step tasks. It accepts a ticket URL (Jira, Linear, GitHub), a file path containing a spec, or a plain-text prompt. It assembles an agent team, breaks the work into structured tasks, and manages the full lifecycle from research through implementation, code review, deploy, and empirical verification.
SOC 職業分類に基づく
SKILL.md を表示中
| name | lisa-reproduce-bug |
| description | How to reproduce a bug reliably… |
A bug that cannot be reproduced cannot be verified as fixed. Root cause analysis does not begin until a reliable reproduction exists.
Left alone, an agent asked to demonstrate a defect will build the environment in which the defect appears — a stub, a fake, a fresh harness — and present that as the reproduction. It looks like proof and it is not: a fix that satisfies it may never touch the path the user is on.
Two kinds of setup get confused here, and only one is a problem:
So the reproduction states, explicitly:
If the real path is unreachable — no credentials, no environment, no data — that is a blocked reproduction. Report the missing access instead of substituting scaffolding and calling the bug reproduced.
| Symptom | Reach for |
|---|---|
| Wrong value, bad output, thrown error | Failing test at the narrowest layer that still crosses the real path |
| Broken interface or journey | Browser or device driver against a running build (Playwright, Maestro) |
| Service or API behaviour | Direct request to the running service — client script or curl |
| Depends on particular data | Seeded fixture recreating that state, recorded as a prerequisite |
| Intermittent or timing-shaped | Loop the trigger; capture timestamps around async boundaries |
| Works locally, fails deployed | Do not chase it locally — reproduce against the environment that fails |
A failing test is the preferred form wherever it can cross the real path: it runs in CI, it becomes the regression guard, and codify-verification expects it. A script is the fallback. Manual steps are the last resort and must carry their prerequisites.
Run the reproduction enough times to state a rate. A reproduction that fails half the time cannot prove a fix — one passing run afterwards means nothing at that rate. If the rate is too low to distinguish a fix from luck, say what would raise it: more iterations, a forced schedule, a narrowed trigger, a seeded clock.
The difference is nearly always one of: runtime version, configuration or feature flags, data state, credentials and permissions, network posture, or platform. Diff the two environments along those axes rather than guessing between them, and report which axes you compared and what you found. That comparison is the finding when the bug stays hidden.
## Reproduction
**Entry point:** the route, command, or action the user hits
**Command or steps:** exactly what to run
**Actual:** what happens · **Expected:** what should happen
**Prerequisites:** seeded data, auth state, flags the real path needs — or "none"
**Replacement scaffolding:** each mock, stub, fake, or bespoke harness and the
real behaviour it substitutes — or "none"
**Survives without replacement scaffolding:** yes / no — if no, this is a lead,
not a reproduction
**Observed failure rate:** n failures in m runs
**Form:** failing test `path` | script `path` | manual steps above
**Environment:** runtime, platform, relevant dependency versions
Capture output whole — a truncated stack trace loses the line that mattered. But evidence carries whatever the system was holding, so redact secrets, tokens, credentials, and personal data before a reproduction is handed on or attached to a work item, and keep any unredacted capture only where the data class it contains is already permitted to live.