codex/skills/investigate/SKILL.md
Systematically investigate bugs, test failures, build errors, performance issues, or unexpected behavior by cycling through characterize-isolate-hypothesize-test steps. Use when the user asks to "investigate this bug", "debug this", "figure out why this fails", "find the root cause", "why is this broken", "troubleshoot this", "diagnose the issue", "what's causing this error", "look into this failure", "why is this test failing", or "track down this bug".
npx skillsauth add tobihagemann/turbo investigateInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Systematic methodology for finding the root cause of bugs, failures, and unexpected behavior. Cycle through characterize-isolate-hypothesize-test steps, with oracle escalation for hard problems. Diagnose the root cause — do not apply fixes.
Optional: $ARGUMENTS contains the problem description or error message.
Gather the symptom and establish what is actually happening:
| Signal | Type | |--------|------| | Stack trace / exception | Runtime error | | Test assertion failure | Test failure | | Compilation / bundler / build error | Build failure | | Type checker error (tsc, mypy, pyright) | Type error | | Slow response / high CPU / memory growth | Performance | | "It does X instead of Y" / no error | Unexpected behavior |
Record the exact reproduction command and its output for verification. For intermittent or long-running reproductions, tail logs in a background shell, filtered for relevant signals (errors, stack traces, specific identifiers) so failures surface live while you work.
Narrow from "something is wrong" to "the problem is in this area." Read references/problem-type-playbooks.md for type-specific first moves and tool sequences.
For all problem types, check what changed recently near the failure point:
git log --oneline -20 -- <file>
git blame -L <start>,<end> <file>
If a known-good state exists (e.g., "this worked yesterday"), consider git bisect to pinpoint the breaking commit.
Generate 2-4 hypotheses ranked by likelihood. Each hypothesis must be falsifiable — specify what evidence would confirm or refute it.
Format:
H1 (most likely): [description] — confirmed if [X], refuted if [Y]
H2: [description] — confirmed if [X], refuted if [Y]
H3: [description] — confirmed if [X], refuted if [Y]
For complex problems with 3+ hypotheses and a non-obvious root cause, spawn parallel investigators simultaneously.
Spawn condition: 3+ hypotheses AND the problem is not a simple typo, missing import, or syntax error.
Skip when 1-2 hypotheses are obvious (e.g., stack trace points directly to the bug).
Launch all investigation branches with spawn_agent / wait_agent using inherited model defaults. Expect one branch per hypothesis plus one Claude consultation branch.
$consult-claude with a focused prompt describing the problem, reproduction, and files examined. The external perspective can dig into patterns the hypothesis-driven branches miss. Run the $evaluate-findings skill on its output after the consultation returns.After all investigators complete, merge results. Claude findings that overlap with a confirmed hypothesis reinforce confidence. Novel Claude findings become additional hypotheses to test in Step 4.
Verify each hypothesis with minimal, targeted actions:
| Action Type | Tool |
|-------------|------|
| Find usage or pattern | Grep |
| Read surrounding code | Read |
| Check recent changes | Bash (git log, git blame, git diff) |
| Run isolated test | Bash (specific test command) |
| Check dependency version | Bash (npm ls, pip3 show, etc.) |
| Inspect runtime state | Bash (add temporary logging, run, check output) |
Record each result:
| Hypothesis | Verdict | Evidence | |------------|---------|----------| | H1 | confirmed / refuted / inconclusive | [what was found] | | H2 | confirmed / refuted / inconclusive | [what was found] |
If all hypotheses are refuted or inconclusive:
Cycle budget: maximum 2 full cycles (hypothesize → test → learn → repeat) before escalating.
After 2 failed hypothesis cycles, offer escalation to $consult-oracle via request_user_input:
Investigation stalled after [N] hypothesis cycles.
Tested: [summary of hypotheses and evidence]
Remaining unknowns: [what is still unclear]
Escalate to Oracle? (consults external model with full context)
Proceed only if the user approves.
Output results as text:
Investigation Report:
Problem: [one-line description]
Type: [runtime error | test failure | build failure | type error | performance | unexpected behavior]
Root cause: [confirmed cause, or "unresolved" with best hypothesis]
Evidence:
- [what confirmed the root cause]
Suggested fix: [description of what to change, or "needs further investigation"]
Reproduction command: [command to verify the fix once applied]
Hypotheses tested:
1. [hypothesis] — [confirmed/refuted/inconclusive] — [evidence]
2. [hypothesis] — [confirmed/refuted/inconclusive] — [evidence]
Escalation: [none | oracle]
Then update or check the active plan and proceed to any remaining task.
development
Run the post-implementation quality assurance workflow including tests, code polishing, review, and commit. Use when the user asks to "finalize implementation", "finalize changes", "wrap up implementation", "finish up", "ready to commit", or "run QA workflow".
development
Run the post-implementation quality assurance workflow including tests, code polishing, review, and commit. Use when the user asks to "finalize implementation", "finalize changes", "wrap up implementation", "finish up", "ready to commit", or "run QA workflow".
tools
Teach the user to deeply understand a change through interactive tutoring: restating understanding, drilling into why/what/how, and quizzing until mastery. The active counterpart to a one-shot explanation. Use when the user asks to "understand this change", "teach me this change", "help me understand what changed", "walk me through this change", "make sure I understand this", "quiz me on this", or "teach me what we did".
tools
Teach the user to deeply understand a change through interactive tutoring: restating understanding, drilling into why/what/how, and quizzing until mastery. The active counterpart to a one-shot explanation. Use when the user asks to "understand this change", "teach me this change", "help me understand what changed", "walk me through this change", "make sure I understand this", "quiz me on this", or "teach me what we did".