| name | adk-issue-analyze |
| description | Analyze and triage a GitHub issue for the adk-python repository. Use this skill to retrieve issue details, inspect the codebase, evaluate legitimacy, check for existing PRs, and produce a structured analysis report. |
ADK Issue Triage & Analysis (Read-Only)
This skill provides a structured workflow for analyzing, verifying, and triaging GitHub issues from the google/adk-python repository. When instructed to analyze/triage an issue, follow this read-only workflow.
[!IMPORTANT]
This skill is strictly read-only: Do NOT modify any code, create new branches, or write any implementation during this phase.
Step 1: Retrieve and Parse the Issue
- Extract the issue number: Parse the number from the link or prompt (e.g.,
https://github.com/google/adk-python/issues/5882 -> 5882).
- Fetch issue details: Use the
gh CLI tool to fetch issue details in JSON format:
gh issue view <issue_number> --repo google/adk-python --json number,title,body,state,labels,comments,assignees,createdAt,closedAt
If the gh CLI is not available or errors out, use read_url_content to fetch the public GitHub issue page:
https://github.com/google/adk-python/issues/<issue_number>
Step 2: Deep Investigation & Analysis
Address the following four critical questions and present your findings in a structured, premium report.
1. What is broken?
Explain the root cause of the issue or failure:
- Trace the execution flow: Identify which components, classes, or functions are malfunctioning.
- Pinpoint the bug: Detail why the system is behaving incorrectly and where the failure originates (e.g. incorrect logic, missing configuration, unhandled states).
2. Is the issue legitimate?
Inspect the codebase to confirm if the issue represents a real problem:
- Examine the description: Identify the component, class, function, or file referenced.
- Search the codebase: Use
grep_search to locate the relevant files/functions in the local workspace.
- Inspect the code: Open the files using
view_file to analyze the code's current logic.
- Verify the bug:
- Is the reported problem actually present in the code?
- Does it produce the reported error or behavior under the current version (ADK 2.0)?
- Is it a documentation typo, setup discrepancy, or a genuine code/logic bug?
- Document your code evidence: Reference specific file paths and line ranges (using clickable markdown file links, e.g.,
[skill_toolset.py](file:///path/to/file#L123)) in your report.
3. Should we fix it?
Formulate a recommendation on whether the issue should be addressed:
- Assess the impact:
- Does it break core functionality?
- Does it affect standard developer workflows or introduce brittle workarounds?
- Is it a high-priority bug or a low-impact cosmetic/feature request?
- Check alignment:
- Does the suggested solution align with
adk-architecture and adk-style?
- Is it consistent with Python idioms and Pydantic validation rules?
- Evaluate workarounds: Is there a clean workaround, or is a core fix necessary?
- Final Recommendation: Clearly declare whether we should fix it, along with the reasoning and estimated complexity/scope of the fix.
4. Is there a linked PR that fixes this issue?
Search for any existing pull requests that attempt to resolve the issue:
- Search PRs: Run
gh pr list --repo google/adk-python --search "<issue_number>" to list pull requests mentioning the issue number in the branch name, title, or body.
- Verify the PR details: If PRs are found, fetch their details:
gh pr view <pr_number> --repo google/adk-python --json number,title,state,url,body,author
- Analyze progress: Check if the PR is open, merged, or closed, and if it successfully fixes the issue according to the repository's testing patterns.
- Present the structured report: Format and present your findings structured as a premium report following the Report Template below.
- Offer to create a fix: If no existing PR is found, you MUST explicitly ask the user: "Would you like me to create and implement a fix for this issue in the workspace? (Note: The changes and tests will be created in a new branch but NOT committed, so you can review and iterate on them.)"
Report Template
Present your final analysis as a high-quality markdown response using the following structure:
# GitHub Issue #<issue_number> Analysis: <Issue Title>
## Detailed Analysis
### 1. Root Cause Analysis ("What is broken?")
- Explanation of the failure or bug (what is failing and why).
- Pinpoint the exact file, function, or design component that is malfunctioning.
### 2. Legitimacy Analysis
- **Status**: [Legitimate Bug / Feature Request / Duplicate / Invalid / Not Reproducible]
- **Evidence**:
- Code references: [filename.py](file:///absolute/path/to/file#L100-L120)
- Analysis of code behavior and why the issue occurs.
### 3. Fix Recommendation
- **Recommendation**: [Should Fix (High Priority) / Should Fix (Medium/Low Priority) / Won't Fix / Needs Discussion]
- **Rationale**:
- Impact on user experience, workflows, or architecture.
- Implementation complexity and risk of side effects.
### 4. Existing Pull Requests
- **Linked PR**: [None / Pull Request #<pr_number> - <PR Title> (<state>)]
- **PR URL**: <PR URL>
- **Analysis**: Brief summary of the PR's approach and status (e.g., "Fixes the bug by implementing X in Y, currently awaiting review").
---
## Executive Summary
1. **What is broken?** [Brief explanation of the root cause or error]
2. **Is the issue legitimate?** [Yes / No - brief explanation]
3. **Should we fix it?** [Yes / No / Needs Discussion - priority & brief reasoning]
4. **Is there a linked PR that fixes this issue?** [None / Yes, PR #<pr_number> - <state>]
Tips & Best Practices
[!TIP]
Always use explicit repository qualifiers (--repo google/adk-python) when running gh commands to avoid failures due to custom internal or local git remotes.
[!IMPORTANT]
When presenting code files and lines, always use markdown file links that point directly to the files in the workspace. Make sure the link is clickable and formatted as [filename.py](file:///absolute/path/to/file#L100-L120) without surrounding backticks around the brackets.
