據 AlphaMoat 統計,截至 2026-09,gstack Investigate 累計下載 4,252 次、獲 2 個星標,在全部 5,078 個 AI 技能中排名第 2,336 位,在「開發程式設計」分類(577 個)中排名第 301 位。
| 平台 | 累計安裝 | 累計下載 | 星標 | 評論 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ClawHub ↗ | 134 | 4252 | 1 | - |
| SkillHub ↗ | 121 | 3995 | 2 | — |
各平台的計數口徑不同,統計時間不一致。
該技能要求先收集症狀、錯誤資訊與復現步驟,追蹤程式碼路徑並檢查近期變化,再提出可檢驗的根因假設和驗證方案;不應在根因尚未確認前只修補表面症狀。除錯記錄或跨會話記憶可能包含敏感程式碼、事故或客戶資訊;讀取或寫入記憶前應徵得同意,報告中需刪去金鑰、客戶資料和不必要的路徑或原始碼。
資料釋出於 2026-10-29
以下是根據技能文件生成的示例,不代表實際執行結果。
2026-09 起統計方法調整:同名技能按作者分別統計,並覆蓋全部技能。圖中虛線為調整前的月份,與之後的資料不直接比較,也不計算跨越調整的增長。
| 月份 | 累計下載 | 環比 | 星標 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09 | 4252 | — | 2 |
| 2026-08 | 4105 | +6.5% | 2 |
| 2026-07 | 3855 | +17.7% | 2 |
| 2026-06 | 3275 | +12.0% | 1 |
| 2026-05 | 2923 | — | 1 |
| 2026-03 | 684 | — | - |
以下是作者釋出的原始檔案,按純文字顯示,本站未做修改或稽核;其中的連結不可點選,命令請核實後再執行。抓取於 2026-10-23。
---
name: gstack-openclaw-investigate
description: Systematic debugging with root cause investigation. Four phases: investigate, analyze, hypothesize, implement. Iron Law: no fixes without root cause. Use when asked to debug, fix a bug, investigate an error, or root cause analysis. Proactively use when user reports errors, stack traces, unexpected behavior, or says something stopped working.
version: 1.0.0
metadata: { "openclaw": { "emoji": "🔍" } }
---
# Systematic Debugging
## Iron Law**NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST.** Fixing symptoms creates whack-a-mole debugging. Every fix that doesn't address root cause makes the next bug harder to find. Find the root cause, then fix it. --- ## Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation Gather context before forming any hypothesis. 1. **Collect symptoms:** Read the error messages, stack traces, and reproduction steps. If the user hasn't provided enough context, ask ONE question at a time. Don't ask five questions at once. 2. **Read the code:** Trace the code path from the symptom back to potential causes. Search for all references, read the logic around the failure point. 3. **Check recent changes:** ```bash git log --oneline -20 -- <affected-files> ``` Was this working before? What changed? A regression means the root cause is in the diff. 4. **Reproduce:** Can you trigger the bug deterministically? If not, gather more evidence before proceeding. 5. **Check memory** for prior debugging sessions on the same area. Recurring bugs in the same files are an architectural smell. Output: **"Root cause hypothesis: ..."** ... a specific, testable claim about what is wrong and why. --- ## Phase 2: Pattern Analysis Check if this bug matches a known pattern: **Race condition** ... Intermittent, timing-dependent. Look at concurrent access to shared state. **Nil/null propagation** ... NoMethodError, TypeError. Missing guards on optional values. **State corruption** ... Inconsistent data, partial updates. Check transactions, callbacks, hooks. **Integration failure** ... Timeout, unexpected response. External API calls, service boundaries. **Configuration drift** ... Works locally, fails in staging/prod. Env vars, feature flags, DB state. **Stale cache** ... Shows old data, fixes on cache clear. Redis, CDN, browser cache. Also check: - Known issues in the project for related problems - Git log for prior fixes in the same area. Recurring bugs in the same files are an architectural smell, not a coincidence. **External search:** If the bug doesn't match a known pattern, search for the error type online. **Sanitize first:** strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL, customer data. Search the error category, not the raw message. --- ## Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing Before writing ANY fix, verify your hypothesis. 1. **Confirm the hypothesis:** Add a temporary log statement, assertion, or debug output at the suspected root cause. Run the reproduction. Does the evidence match? 2. **If the hypothesis is wrong:** Search for the error (sanitize sensitive data first). Return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess. 3. **3-strike rule:** If 3 hypotheses fail, **STOP**. Tell the user: "3 hypotheses tested, none match. This may be an architectural issue rather than a simple bug." Options: - Continue investigating with a new hypothesis (describe it) - Escalate for human review (needs someone who knows the system) - Add logging and wait (instrument the area and catch it next time) **Red flags** ... if you see any of these, slow down: - "Quick fix for now" ... there is no "for now." Fix it right or escalate. - Proposing a fix before tracing data flow ... you're guessing. - Each fix reveals a new problem elsewhere ... wrong layer, not wrong code. --- ## Phase 4: Implementation Once root cause is confirmed: 1. **Fix the root cause, not the symptom.** The smallest change that eliminates the actual problem. 2. **Minimal diff:** Fewest files touched, fewest lines changed. Resist the urge to refactor adjacent code. 3. **Write a regression test** that: - **Fails** without the fix (proves the test is meaningful) - **Passes** with the fix (proves the fix works) 4. **Run the full test suite.** No regressions allowed. 5. **If the fix touches >5 files:** Flag the blast radius to the user before proceeding. That's large for a bug fix. --- ## Phase 5: Verification & Report **Fresh verification:** Reproduce the original bug scenario and confirm it's fixed. This is not optional. Run the test suite. Output a structured debug report: **DEBUG REPORT** - **Symptom:** what the user observed - **Root cause:** what was actually wrong - **Fix:** what was changed, with file references - **Evidence:** test output, reproduction showing fix works - **Regression test:** location of the new test - **Related:** prior bugs in same area, architectural notes - **Status:** DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED Save the report to `memory/` with today's date so future sessions can reference it. --- ## Important Rules - **3+ failed fix attempts: STOP and question the architecture.** Wrong architecture, not failed hypothesis. - **Never apply a fix you cannot verify.** If you can't reproduce and confirm, don't ship it. - **Never say "this should fix it."** Verify and prove it. Run the tests. - **If fix touches >5 files:** Flag to user before proceeding. - **Completion status:** - DONE ... root cause found, fix applied, regression test written, all tests pass - DONE_WITH_CONCERNS ... fixed but cannot fully verify (e.g., intermittent bug, requires staging) - BLOCKED ... root cause unclear after investigation, escalated
用 gh 命令列工具檢視 GitHub 上的 PR 檢查、工作流執行與 API 查詢的技能。
聚合 16 個搜尋引擎、無需 API Key 的檢索技能。
用命令列直接列出、配置、授權並呼叫 MCP 服務與工具。
根據文字描述生成 Mermaid 圖表程式碼。
用受管 OAuth 訪問 YouTube Data API,檢索影片並管理頻道內容。
透過受管的 OAuth 連線訪問 GitHub REST API。
覆蓋規劃、實現、驗證與測試的編碼工作流技能。
整理 Docker 常用命令與容器工作流的技能。
資料月份:2026-09 · 下載/星標/安裝數聚合自公開技能註冊庫(ClawHub、SkillHub),按月更新。口徑說明見資料方法。