mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-03-30 20:21:09 +08:00
67ff3fe339
- Add 3 new Claude skills: investigate (Iron Law debugging), security-audit (OWASP Top 10 + STRIDE), ship (gated release pipeline) - Port all 3 skills to Codex v4 format under .codex/skills/ using Deep Interaction pattern (spawn_agent + assign_task phase transitions) - Update README/README_CN acknowledgments: credit gstack (https://github.com/garrytan/gstack) as inspiration source Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
133 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
133 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
# Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
|
|
|
|
Reproduce the bug and collect all available evidence before forming any theories.
|
|
|
|
## Objective
|
|
|
|
- Reproduce the bug with concrete, observable symptoms
|
|
- Collect all evidence: error messages, logs, stack traces, affected files
|
|
- Establish a baseline understanding of what goes wrong and where
|
|
- Use CLI analysis for initial diagnosis
|
|
|
|
## Execution Steps
|
|
|
|
### Step 1: Understand the Bug Report
|
|
|
|
Parse the user's description to extract:
|
|
- **Symptom**: What observable behavior is wrong?
|
|
- **Expected**: What should happen instead?
|
|
- **Context**: When/where does it occur? (specific input, environment, timing)
|
|
|
|
```javascript
|
|
const bugReport = {
|
|
symptom: "extracted from user description",
|
|
expected_behavior: "what should happen",
|
|
context: "when/where it occurs",
|
|
user_provided_files: ["files mentioned by user"],
|
|
user_provided_errors: ["error messages provided"]
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 2: Reproduce the Bug
|
|
|
|
Attempt to reproduce using the most direct method available:
|
|
|
|
1. **Run the failing test** (if one exists):
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Identify and run the specific failing test
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. **Run the failing command** (if CLI/script):
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Execute the command that triggers the bug
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
3. **Read error-producing code path** (if reproduction requires complex setup):
|
|
- Use `Grep` to find the error message in source code
|
|
- Use `Read` to trace the code path that produces the error
|
|
- Document the theoretical reproduction path
|
|
|
|
**If reproduction fails**: Document what was attempted. The investigation can continue with static analysis, but note this as a concern.
|
|
|
|
### Step 3: Collect Evidence
|
|
|
|
Gather all available evidence using project tools:
|
|
|
|
```javascript
|
|
// 1. Find error messages in source
|
|
Grep({ pattern: "error message text", path: "src/" })
|
|
|
|
// 2. Find related log output
|
|
Grep({ pattern: "relevant log pattern", path: "." })
|
|
|
|
// 3. Read stack trace files or test output
|
|
Read({ file_path: "path/to/failing-test-output" })
|
|
|
|
// 4. Identify affected files and modules
|
|
Glob({ pattern: "**/*relevant-module*" })
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 4: Initial Diagnosis via CLI Analysis
|
|
|
|
Use `ccw cli` for a broader diagnostic perspective:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
ccw cli -p "PURPOSE: Diagnose root cause of bug from collected evidence
|
|
TASK: Analyze error context | Trace data flow | Identify suspicious code patterns
|
|
MODE: analysis
|
|
CONTEXT: @{affected_files} | Evidence: {error_messages_and_traces}
|
|
EXPECTED: Top 3 likely root causes ranked by evidence strength
|
|
CONSTRAINTS: Read-only analysis | Focus on {affected_module}" \
|
|
--tool gemini --mode analysis
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 5: Write Investigation Report
|
|
|
|
Generate `investigation-report.json` in memory (carried to next phase):
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"phase": 1,
|
|
"bug_description": "concise description of the bug",
|
|
"reproduction": {
|
|
"reproducible": true,
|
|
"steps": [
|
|
"step 1: ...",
|
|
"step 2: ...",
|
|
"step 3: observe error"
|
|
],
|
|
"reproduction_method": "test|command|static_analysis"
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence": {
|
|
"error_messages": ["exact error text"],
|
|
"stack_traces": ["relevant stack trace"],
|
|
"affected_files": ["file1.ts", "file2.ts"],
|
|
"affected_modules": ["module-name"],
|
|
"log_output": ["relevant log lines"]
|
|
},
|
|
"initial_diagnosis": {
|
|
"cli_tool_used": "gemini",
|
|
"top_suspects": [
|
|
{ "description": "suspect 1", "evidence_strength": "strong|moderate|weak", "files": [] }
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Output
|
|
|
|
- **Data**: `investigation-report` (in-memory, passed to Phase 2)
|
|
- **Format**: JSON structure as defined above
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Bug symptom clearly documented
|
|
- [ ] Reproduction attempted (success or documented failure)
|
|
- [ ] At least one piece of concrete evidence collected (error message, stack trace, or failing test)
|
|
- [ ] Affected files identified
|
|
- [ ] Initial diagnosis generated
|
|
|
|
## Next Phase
|
|
|
|
Proceed to [Phase 2: Pattern Analysis](02-pattern-analysis.md) with the investigation report.
|