Investigate

Investigation — From Idea to Plan

Goal: "$ARGUMENTS"

Start a structured investigation for new work. The user provides a goal and hints about where to find relevant information. Claude gathers context, synthesizes understanding, creates a formal plan, and optionally files GitHub issues.

This is the beginning-of-work counterpart to /fullpostmortem (end-of-work).

Phase 1: Gather

Goal: Build a complete picture of the problem space from all available sources.

1a. Parse User Input

Extract from the user's message:

• Goal statement: What are we trying to accomplish?
• File hints: Any *.md filenames, paths, or document references → read them
• Issue hints: Any #N references or issue descriptions → fetch with gh_issue_full.py --full
• Keywords: Technical terms, feature names, component names → search for related docs
• Scope signals: "small fix", "new feature", "refactor", "epic" → calibrate depth

1b. Read Referenced Sources (parallel where possible)

Launch up to 3 agents in parallel based on what was referenced:

Local files (most common starting point):

• Read all files the user mentioned by name
• Search private/claude/ for related design docs (grep by keywords from goal)
• Check for existing plans in ~/.claude/plans/

GitHub issues (CRITICAL — always chase references):

• For each referenced issue: python scripts/gh_issue_full.py N --full --repo OWNER/REPO
  • Look for gh_issue_full.py in project's scripts/ folder first
  • Fallback: scripts/repokit-common/gh_issue_full.py (ships with any repo consuming the git-repokit-common subtree)
  • ALWAYS use --full flag to get complete body and all comments
• If issue has sub-issues or parent issues, read those too
• Check for CurrentTask/NextTask labeled issues: gh issue list --label CurrentTask
• MANDATORY: Chase all references — after reading an issue, scan the body and comments for:
  • Markdown filenames (e.g., 2026-03-16__23-20-59__dev-workflow-*.md) → read those files
  • Other issue references (#N, Refs #N, Closes #N) → read those issues
  • URLs/URIs to external resources → fetch if relevant
  • Code file references → read those files
  • The "Analysis" or "Related" sections at the bottom often contain the most important references
• This reference-chasing step is what separates thorough investigation from piecemeal research

Git context:

• git log --oneline -10 — recent history
• git branch -a — active branches
• git status — any in-progress work

Code exploration (when the goal touches specific code):

• Launch Explore agent to understand relevant code areas
• Use oracle agent to trace design decisions if needed

External research (when topic is unfamiliar or user requests it):

• Launch help agent for web search
• Use senior-engineer agent for architectural guidance

1c. Present Findings

Summarize what was gathered:

• Key documents read and their relevance
• Open questions or gaps in understanding
• Whether existing design docs already cover the topic

Ask the user: "Is there anything else I should read before we proceed to analysis?"

Phase 2: Synthesize

Goal: Create or update a design document that captures the problem, approaches, and trade-offs.

2a. Assess Existing Coverage

Before creating a new document:

• Do existing design docs already cover this topic adequately?
• If yes: summarize what they say and skip to Phase 3
• If partially: create an addendum to the existing doc
• If no: create a new dev-workflow-process document

2b. Create Design Document

If new analysis is needed, use the /dev-workflow-process pattern:

./private/claude/YYYY-MM-DD__HH-MM-SS__dev-workflow-<topic>.md

Include:

1. Problem Analysis — user's verbatim goal + context gathered
2. Considerations — constraints, trade-offs, edge cases, affected systems
3. Solutions — evaluate approaches with pros/cons
4. Synthesis — recommended approach with PUVM summary

2c. Refine with User

Present the key findings and recommended approach. This is the checkpoint where the user provides feedback, corrections, or redirections before we commit to a plan.

Common user responses at this stage:

• "That looks right, let's plan it" → proceed to Phase 3
• "Actually, we should also consider..." → iterate on the design doc
• "Let's discuss this with Gemini" → trigger /collaborate skill
• "That's too complex, let's simplify" → narrow scope and re-analyze

Phase 3: Plan

Goal: Create a concrete implementation plan.

3a. Enter Plan Mode

Use Claude's plan mode to create a structured implementation plan:

• Reference the design document from Phase 2
• Break work into concrete steps with file paths
• Include verification/testing strategy
• Identify risks and mitigations

3b. Back Up Plan

After plan approval, copy to project's private/claude/:

./private/claude/YYYY-MM-DD__HH-MM-SS__claude-plan__<topic>.md

3c. Create Feature Branch (if appropriate)

If the work warrants a branch (not all work does ask the user):

git checkout -b feature/<topic>

Phase 4: Track

Goal: Ensure the work is properly tracked in GitHub and linked to related work.

4a. Review Existing Issues

Check if GitHub issues already exist for this work:

• gh issue list --state open --limit 20
• Search for related issues by keyword

4b. Propose New Issues (user approves)

If new issues are needed:

• Draft issue body to private/claude/issues/
• Present to user for review
• Only create after explicit approval
• Link sub-issues to parent epics if applicable

4c. Update Labels

• Apply CurrentTask label to the active issue
• Promote NextTask if there was one queued
• Reference the design doc filename in the issue body

Adaptive Behavior

Not every investigation needs all 4 phases. Adapt based on signals:

Output at Each Phase

Example Invocations

/investigate We want to add image_purpose widget per #36. Read the design doc at
  2026-03-16__23-20-59__dev-workflow-image-purpose-widget-and-output-decoupling.md
  and check issue #42 for the epic context.

/investigate How should we handle the ComfyUI Registry submodule problem?
  The issue is that tarballs don't have .git directories.

/investigate #56 — I want to understand this issue and plan the fix.

/investigate Let's think about refactoring the serialization layer.
  Start with the collaborate3 results in private/claude/ and the Gemini feedback.

Design Rationale

This skill was created from observing the repeated pattern of starting new work. The full design rationale, including the exact user observations that led to this skill and the dev-workflow-process analysis, is documented in:

a maintainer-private design document (not included in this repo)

Reading that document provides context for WHY each phase exists, what problem it solves, and how the user typically interacts with the investigation process. Key insight: the user provides hints (file paths, issue numbers, keywords) and expects Claude to bootstrap the investigation from those hints rather than requiring manual orchestration of each step.

Agent Orchestration

Each agent has a distinct role during investigation. Use the right agent for the right job:

Orchestration pattern: Start with oracle to understand existing knowledge structure, use Explore to find relevant code, escalate to senior-engineer for deep analysis, and only reach for external consultation (help agent or /collaborate) when internal resources are insufficient.

Notes

• Always save the user's verbatim message in any design doc created
• Never create GitHub issues without user approval
• The investigation may span multiple conversation turns — that's expected
• If context is getting low, create a context postmortem before compaction
• Reference chasing is mandatory — every referenced file, issue, or URL must be read before Phase 1 is complete