据 AlphaMoat 统计,截至 2026-09,gstack Investigate 累计下载 4,252 次、获 2 个星标,在全部 5,078 个 AI 技能中排名第 2,336 位,在「开发编程」分类(577 个)中排名第 301 位。
| 平台 | 累计安装 | 累计下载 | 星标 | 评论 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ClawHub ↗ | 134 | 4,252 | 1 | - |
| SkillHub ↗ | 121 | 3,995 | 2 | — |
各平台的计数口径不同,统计时间不一致。
该技能要求先收集症状、错误信息与复现步骤,追踪代码路径并检查近期变化,再提出可检验的根因假设和验证方案;不应在根因尚未确认前只修补表面症状。调试记录或跨会话记忆可能包含敏感代码、事故或客户信息;读取或写入记忆前应征得同意,报告中需删去密钥、客户资料和不必要的路径或源码。
资料发布于 2026-10-29
以下是根据技能文档生成的示例,不代表实际运行结果。
2026-09 起统计方法调整:同名技能按作者分别统计,并覆盖全部技能。图中虚线为调整前的月份,与之后的数据不直接比较,也不计算跨越调整的增长。
| 月份 | 累计下载 | 环比 | 星标 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09 | 4,252 | — | 2 |
| 2026-08 | 4,105 | +6.5% | 2 |
| 2026-07 | 3,855 | +17.7% | 2 |
| 2026-06 | 3,275 | +12.0% | 1 |
| 2026-05 | 2,923 | — | 1 |
| 2026-03 | 684 | — | - |
以下是作者发布的原始文件,按纯文本显示,本站未做修改或审核;其中的链接不可点击,命令请核实后再运行。抓取于 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 命令行工具查看 GitHub 上的 PR 检查、工作流运行与 API 查询的技能。
聚合 16 个搜索引擎、无需 API Key 的检索技能。
用命令行直接列出、配置、授权并调用 MCP 服务与工具。
根据文字描述生成 Mermaid 图表代码。
用受管 OAuth 访问 YouTube Data API,检索视频并管理频道内容。
通过受管的 OAuth 连接访问 GitHub REST API。
覆盖规划、实现、验证与测试的编码工作流技能。
整理 Docker 常用命令与容器工作流的技能。
数据月份:2026-09 · 下载/星标/安装数聚合自公开技能注册库(ClawHub、SkillHub),按月更新。口径说明见数据方法。