SkillAgentSearch skills...

issue-root-resolution

Load when auditing a defect backlog for shared root causes, proposing a fix for an issue cluster, or closing issues as resolved/outdated. Complements `rdd-defect-workflow` (single-defect flow) — this skill governs the cluster-level method.

Install / Use

npx skills add Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai --skill issue-root-resolution

Installs into whichever agent you are using.

About this skill
📄

SKILL.md

Installable skill definition

Quality Score

83/100

Category

Automation

Supported Platforms

Universal

Tags

Our assessment of issue-root-resolution

issue-root-resolution scores 83/100 on our quality scale, 1396th of 1,990 Automation skills we index.

Its SKILL.md is 4.9 KB long, split into 6 sections and no code examples: a solid amount of guidance for an agent.

With 7,305 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.

Substance
26/30
Structure
11/20
Description
15/15
Adoption
16/20
Freshness
15/15

Maintenance, license and trust

  • The repository was last updated 2 days ago, so issue-root-resolution is actively maintained.
  • It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
  • Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.

issue-root-resolution compared with similar skills

All 4 of these similar skills score higher than issue-root-resolution; compare them before choosing.

SkillScoreStarsUpdatedFormat
issue-root-resolution (this skill)by Gentleman-Programming837.3k2d agoSKILL.md
Agent-Reachby Panniantong10085.8k12d agoCLAUDE.md
rufloby ruvnet10073.4ktodayCLAUDE.md
Scraplingby D4Vinci10084.1ktodayMCP Server
algorithmic-artby anthropics100177.9k5d agoSKILL.md

Frequently asked questions

How do I install issue-root-resolution?
Run npx skills add Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai --skill issue-root-resolution. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent.
Which AI agents does issue-root-resolution work with?
It is written for Universal, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
Is issue-root-resolution safe to use?
It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
Is issue-root-resolution still maintained?
The repository was last updated 2 days ago, so issue-root-resolution is actively maintained.

name: issue-root-resolution description: "Trigger: root audit, atacar la raíz, issue roots, backlog roots, mechanism map, deletion-driven fix, resolver issues de raíz, close outdated issues. Audit and resolve issue clusters by verified root cause." license: Apache-2.0 metadata: author: gentleman-programming version: "1.0"

Activation Contract

Load when auditing a defect backlog for shared root causes, proposing a fix for an issue cluster, or closing issues as resolved/outdated. Complements rdd-defect-workflow (single-defect flow) — this skill governs the cluster-level method.

Hard Rules

  • Read full bodies and comments, never titles. Classify against the actual code or PR diff, not descriptions of it.
  • Verify every "fixed" or "broken" claim against current origin/main the day you act. Compare report dates to fix merge dates: a repro filed before the fix landed is evidence about old builds, not current code.
  • Cluster defects by causal root, not surface. Each root gets a measured row in the meta-issue (#2471 style): issues attached, fix shape, state.
  • Before proposing any fix, produce a read-only mechanism map: one file:line anchor per claim, mechanism explained as implemented today. Report claim-vs-code mismatches explicitly; never force evidence to fit the hypothesis. Let the map shrink the proposal.
  • Rank solutions by what they DELETE: (1) removes a mechanism so the class becomes impossible, (2) static guard-ratchet making reintroduction a test failure, (3) localized predicate fix behind a failing repro test. New surface (verbs, flags, mechanisms) is last resort — defer until re-verified evidence demands it.
  • Extract maintainer choices as named D-items with recommended defaults. A maintainer condition recorded in an issue thread outranks any plan table, including yours.
  • Close only with evidence, one rule per closure: (A) fixed on main, cite commit AND proving test; (B) superseded by recorded maintainer decision; (C) surface no longer exists; (D) duplicate of a fixed issue. Comment before closing: what resolved it, verified today, reopen invitation. When in doubt, do not close — list as borderline.
  • Clean break, never compatibility. When a format or identity changes, bump its versioned tag as a REPLACEMENT: old records become outdated and fail closed with an actionable refusal naming the rerun. Never write dual recognition, legacy fallbacks, or compat shims; that residue is what the deletion criterion exists to prevent. Stored bytes are never rewritten and stay readable for forensics, but carry no gate or lifecycle validity.
  • Implementation follows the waves recipe: repro as failing test first, byte-stable goldens as defect signal, independently revertible slices, one writer per slice.
  • A universal guard's verification matrix is go test ./... at the repository root, never a curated package list. A guard that forbids a shape breaks every fixture that relied on it, including in packages the change never touched.
  • One worktree per writer, always, including the orchestrator. Before editing inline, check whether a delegated worker holds that path; if so, create a separate worktree rather than reusing it.
  • Audit every worker report yourself: re-run its key verification, decoy-test any new guard, spot-check its diffs. A self-report is a claim, not evidence.

Decision Gates

| Condition | Action | | --- | --- | | Issue's failure mechanism absent from current main | Re-verify on latest build; close by rule A/C or mark stale — never fix ghost code. | | Fix would add a mechanism, flag, or verb | Defer with written reason; re-rank for a deletion-shaped alternative first. | | Map contradicts the issue or your hypothesis | The map wins. Revise the plan and correct the public record (meta-issue) before coding. | | Blocker's fix lives in an unmerged PR | Leave open; it closes on merge or by its own thread condition. | | Closure evidence incomplete | Borderline list, not closure. |

Execution Steps

  1. Measure: read the cluster fully; partition by root; record counts in the meta-issue.
  2. Classify each issue against the real diff/code; separate closes-via-X, improved-not-closed, unrelated, blocker.
  3. Map mechanisms read-only with anchors; flag mismatches.
  4. Rank fixes deletion-first; name D-items; get maintainer answers.
  5. Implement in slices (issue-first: every PR links a status:approved issue), audit each worker report.
  6. Hygiene pass: evidence-gated closures, stale-repro re-verification requests, meta-issue update with what changed and why.

Output Contract

Per pass, report: roots table (issues, fix shape, state), closures with rule+evidence, borderline list with reasons, D-items and their answers, mechanism-map mismatches found, and the meta-issue comment link.

References

  • ../rdd-advisory-transport/references/shared-advisory-transport-proposal.md — exemplar proposal shape produced by this method.
  • ../rdd-advisory-transport/references/issue-impact-matrix.md — exemplar per-issue disposition matrix.

Related Skills

View on GitHub
GitHub Stars7.3k
CategoryAutomation
Updated2d ago
Forks799

Languages

Go

Trust signals

100/100

From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.

No cautions