メニュー
Launch Oz cloud agents with computer use to reproduce UI-focused bug reports, capture visual evidence, and report reproduction findings. Use when investigating a specific interactive or visual bug from an issue, ticket, support report, or prompt.
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。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Produce a polished, self-contained HTML "readout" document under ~/.readouts (with an auto-maintained index page), either by snapshotting the findings accumulated in the current conversation or — when invoked fresh, e.g. "/readout on how github webhook events are processed" — by sharpening scope with clarifying questions and researching the codebase before documenting. The work runs in a child agent so the main conversation's context stays clean. Use whenever the user invokes /readout, says "write this up", "turn this into a doc/page", "make a readout", or asks for a readable, shareable document capturing findings or explaining how something works.
Scan warpdotdev/warp and warp-server for recently merged PRODUCT.md specs that don't yet have a corresponding docs PR in warpdotdev/docs. When a complete spec is found, auto-generates a full docs draft PR and tags the engineer. When a spec is too thin to draft from, pings the engineer directly. Designed to run as a scheduled Oz ambient agent (e.g., every 2-3 days). Use when setting up the automated docs trigger or running a manual docs coverage sweep.
Draft a complete documentation page for a new Warp feature from its PRODUCT.md and/or TECH.md spec. Use when an engineer has written a spec and needs to produce a first-pass MDX draft for the warpdotdev/docs repo. Also handles features without specs by researching the codebase first. Invoke this skill whenever an engineer mentions writing docs for a feature, drafting a docs page, creating feature documentation, starting the eng-docs workflow, or converting a spec into documentation. Works from warp-internal or warp-server.
Run an autonomous, spec-driven development "saga" for medium-to-large features using an orchestrator agent and a fleet of worker subagents. Use this skill whenever the user invokes /saga, asks to autonomously build a sizable feature end-to-end with minimal human intervention, wants a comprehensive spec broken into milestones and tasks with airtight validation criteria before parallelized implementation, or wants an orchestrator to delegate implementation to worker agents while preserving its own context window. Trigger on phrases like "run a saga", "autonomously implement this feature", "spec it out then build it with subagents", "orchestrate this big feature end-to-end", or "build this with workers and validate each step". Also use this skill when asked to continue, resume, or pick up an existing saga from its saga directory (e.g. under ~/.sagas).
Run a second round on a contested question by circulating each subagent's independent proposal to the other authors and asking for structured pros and cons, then synthesize. Use this skill whenever you have multiple independent proposals or opinions on a contested decision — architecture tradeoffs, code review disagreements, design choices, competing root-cause theories — and want sharper analysis than you'd produce by synthesizing alone. Pairs naturally with the council and research skills; reach for it liberally whenever proposals diverge.
Delegate noisy investigation to one or more subagents so the orchestrator's context stays clean, then work from the distilled answer. Use this skill whenever answering a question would require reading many files, long logs, large diffs, or wide codebase surveys — i.e. when producing the answer generates far more noise than the answer itself. Use it for "how does X work", "where is Y used", "what's the root cause of Z", "summarize this PR/log" style questions, and reach for it liberally before reading a pile of files inline.
| name | reproduce-bug-report |
| description | Launch Oz cloud agents with computer use to reproduce UI-focused bug reports, capture visual evidence, and report reproduction findings. Use when investigating a specific interactive or visual bug from an issue, ticket, support report, or prompt. |
Use this skill when the current context is a GitHub issue, support report, Linear ticket, or user prompt describing a specific bug that may be reproduced through visible application behavior. It is primarily for UI, rendering, windowing, settings, editor, terminal-display, onboarding, or other interactive bugs where screenshots or recordings make the result more actionable.
The parent agent should not try to manually reproduce the UI bug locally unless the user explicitly asks. Launch one or more Oz cloud agents with computer use enabled so they can run the relevant app, interact with it, and capture visual evidence.
run_agents batch. Give each child a distinct hypothesis or environment variant, such as:
The consuming repository may ship a companion reproduce-bug-report-local skill. When that companion is available or referenced in the prompt, read it and apply its repository-specific scope, app setup, environment, and workflow guidance as supplemental instructions. The local companion may narrow scope or specialize setup, but it should not redefine the evidence, artifact, reporting, or safety expectations in this core skill.
Use a run_agents call shaped like this:
summary: Launching Oz cloud computer-use agents to reproduce the reported UI bug and collect screenshots.
remote.computer_use_enabled: true
agent_run_configs:
- name: "repro-primary"
prompt: the primary repro prompt
- name: "repro-variant"
prompt: optional variant prompt when useful
base_prompt: the shared child prompt below
Omit extra children when they would duplicate the same steps. Omit model_id unless the user requested a specific model.
Give every child agent these shared instructions, then append the child-specific repro path or hypothesis.
You are trying to reproduce a reported UI bug using Oz cloud computer use.
Goal:
- Reproduce the reported behavior as faithfully as possible.
- Capture screenshots before and after each meaningful interaction.
- If the provided steps are unclear or incomplete, use codebase and product knowledge to identify plausible app states that could produce the reported behavior, then test the assigned hypothesis.
- Report clear reproduction evidence, not just opinions.
Inputs:
- Bug report context: <paste or summarize the issue body, comments, screenshots/video descriptions, labels, and relevant metadata>
- Assigned repro path or hypothesis: <specific steps, environment, app state, settings, feature flags, or code path to test>
- Reporter app version/build/channel: <exact value from the report, or unknown>
- Build/app target: <exact runnable artifact to install, or the justified fallback if exact artifact is unavailable>
Safety and privacy:
- Do not ask the public reporter for credentials, tokens, private repos, private workspace names, or private account identifiers.
- Do not include secrets, auth tokens, private URLs, Authorization headers, or refresh tokens in screenshots, logs, manifests, or final reports.
- Do not create or sign into an account unless the prompt and repository-specific guidance explicitly authorize a safe test-auth workflow.
- If the assigned report cannot be exercised within the allowed auth/state constraints, stop and report the blocker.
- Do not post comments to GitHub, Linear, Slack, or external services unless explicitly instructed.
- Avoid destructive actions. If a repro requires deleting app state, delete only test state for the current repro environment and report exactly what was reset.
Artifact workflow:
- Create a dedicated artifact directory named for your variant, such as `~/bug-repro-primary`.
- Save screenshots with ordered filenames, such as `01-initial-state.png`, `02-before-click-settings.png`, and `03-after-click-settings.png`.
- Maintain a short manifest in the artifact directory with:
- screenshot filename
- timestamp
- visible app state
- action just taken or about to be taken
- whether the screenshot shows the reported bug
- If the harness supports built-in screenshot or artifact upload, use it. Otherwise leave artifacts in the directory and report the paths.
Reproduction workflow:
1. Confirm the environment you are testing: OS, architecture, display/session type, shell if relevant, and app/build/version if visible.
2. Identify the exact reporter app version/build/channel from the report when available, then use the closest repository-approved runnable artifact.
3. If no exact reporter version is available, record that the version is unknown and choose the most defensible install target for the report; state the fallback explicitly.
4. Start from the cleanest state that matches the report. Do not reset app state if the bug depends on existing settings or persisted local state.
5. Reach the baseline app state required by the report before attempting the bug-specific reproduction.
6. Capture the baseline screenshot before attempting the bug-specific reproduction.
7. Follow the exact provided bug reproduction steps first, when available.
8. If exact steps do not reproduce, test the assigned hypothesis and document where it diverges from the report.
9. If the bug appears, stop changing variables and capture enough evidence to make the reproduction actionable.
10. If the bug does not appear, make at most two targeted variations that are directly supported by the report or code-path hypothesis.
11. If the app crashes, hangs, or blocks progress, capture a screenshot and collect non-sensitive logs or terminal output that explain the blocker.
Code-path investigation for unclear steps:
- Search the codebase for UI strings, labels, feature names, settings keys, telemetry names, route names, and components mentioned in the report.
- Identify the likely component, model, feature flag, or state transition that could produce the reported behavior.
- Use that investigation to choose targeted UI actions rather than broad exploratory clicking.
- Report the files or symbols that informed your hypothesis, but keep the final report focused on reproduction evidence.
Report back:
- A brief bug summary before the verdict, including the issue/report identifier if available, the reported behavior, and the expected behavior.
- Reproduction status: confirmed, partially confirmed, not reproduced, or blocked.
- The exact steps you performed.
- Environment and app/build information.
- Reporter-requested app version/build/channel, installed test version/build/channel, and the artifact source or fallback explanation.
- Whether the observed behavior matched the report, and how closely.
- Screenshot list with short descriptions and artifact paths or attachment names.
- Any logs, crash output, or diagnostics collected, with secrets redacted.
- The most likely code path or state involved, if investigated.
- Suggested next debugging step or follow-up question, only if it would materially change the next action.
Use this for a report with clear steps:
You own the primary reproduction attempt.
Follow the bug report's steps exactly before trying variants. Prioritize matching the reporter's OS, app channel, allowed app state, settings, shell, and layout. If those details are missing, choose the most common path and explicitly list assumptions.
Use this when there is a specific alternate condition worth testing:
You own this reproduction variant: <variant name>.
Test only this variant's assigned environment or state. Do not duplicate the primary child's full search space. Report whether this variant changes the outcome and include screenshots for any difference.
Use this when repro steps are missing or ambiguous:
You own code-path-guided reproduction.
Start by tracing likely code paths from strings, UI labels, settings names, feature names, or screenshots in the report. Then choose a targeted UI path that should exercise the suspected state. Report the code paths you used to form the hypothesis and the visual result of testing it.
A successful use of this skill produces:
When the children finish, summarize in this structure:
Bug summary:
- Issue/report: <identifier or source>
- Reported behavior: <what bug the child attempted to reproduce>
- Expected behavior: <what should have happened instead>
Reproduction status: <confirmed | partially confirmed | not reproduced | blocked>
What was tested:
- <variant/child>: <steps and environment>
Evidence:
- <screenshot/artifact path>: <what it shows>
Findings:
- <observed behavior vs reported behavior>
- <likely state/code path, if known>
Next step:
- <one concrete debugging action or follow-up question>