Session Triage
Invoke as $session-triage.
Use this skill when the user wants a focused investigation of one immediate issue: a current conversation problem, one correction, one session, one repo incident, one failed run, or one suspected skill failure. This skill verifies what happened before recommending a durable fix.
Use $analyze-sessions instead when the user wants broad cross-session trends, recurring frustration analysis, performance evaluation over time, repeated prompt patterns, or automation opportunities.
Inputs
- Active conversation context.
- Optional session ID, session file, or exported log.
- Optional repository path or current working directory.
- Optional skill name or
SKILL.mdpath. - Optional user correction text, error output, test failure, log excerpt, file path, commit, or issue description.
Process
Define the investigation scope:
- Treat the current conversation and current working directory as the default scope.
- Prefer user-provided session IDs, files, repo paths, skill names, exact correction phrases, errors, logs, and test failures over broad history searches.
- Resolve named skills from
base/codex,base/claude,packs, project-local.agents,.codex,.claude, and installed~/.codex/skillsor~/.claude/skillsas read-only fallback evidence. - Do not create an
$analyze-sessionalias or route; use this distinct command name to avoid singular/plural confusion.
Gather narrow evidence first:
- Read the target skill contract when a skill is named.
- Read directly relevant project instructions such as
AGENTS.md,CLAUDE.md, task docs, pack docs, logs, or test output. - Search only the scoped repo/session/history for the issue text, skill name, invocation command, relevant file paths, user correction, and nearby agent actions.
- Include the active conversation as evidence when the correction is happening now.
- Broaden to
$analyze-sessionsonly when recurrence, frequency, or trend evidence is needed.
Verify the issue before diagnosing:
- Separate the user-identified issue from the agent-verified issue.
- Classify the verification verdict as
verified,partially verified,not verified, orinconclusive. - A verified issue requires evidence for what the agent did, what the skill/repo/user contract required, and why the outcome was wrong or risky.
- If evidence shows the skill contract was adequate and the agent ignored it, say that directly.
Build a concise timeline:
- User request or trigger.
- Skill or instruction that should have applied.
- Agent action or omission.
- Failure, correction, or observed impact.
- Relevant repo/session state.
Diagnose root cause:
- Identify whether the cause is a missing trigger, ambiguous trigger, missing evidence gate, insufficient scope resolution, weak output contract, bad next-step routing, missing validation, missing safety constraint, stale mirrored contract, repo instruction conflict, or agent noncompliance with an adequate contract.
- Compare Claude and Codex skill versions when both exist and flag mirrored drift.
- Check
tasks/lessons.mdwhen working inagentic-skills; reuse existing lessons or recommend a new lesson when the pattern is novel. - For benchmark failures, check recent same-skill
benchmark/triage-<skill>-*.mdreports andtasks/lessons.mdbefore recommending a narrow tolerance patch. If two or more recent reports classify the same family of valid outputs as benchmark false negatives, stop patching individual phrasings and route to a generalized rubric, semantic evaluator, fixture-family, or infrastructure-classifier fix that covers the family.
Recommend the smallest durable fix:
- Name exact skill file(s), instruction file(s), or docs to change.
- Provide concrete rule text or workflow-step wording when a skill-contract change is justified.
- Include validation checks that prove the revised behavior prevents the issue, such as targeted
rgchecks, mirrored contract checks, version checks, replay of the decision path, or the failing test/log command. - For repeated benchmark false-negative families, the recommended fix must name the owning harness or setup file, the family-level behavior to recognize or reject, positive and negative fixture shapes to add, and a validation command such as focused layer1 setup tests plus
pnpm --dir tests verify --skill <skill>. - Route verified skill changes to
$targeted-skill-builderfor a narrow update or$create-agentic-skillfor a new repo-managed skill.
Output
Produce a structured report with:
- Target: session/repo/skill scope and evidence sources.
- User-identified issue: the user's claim in concise terms.
- Verification verdict:
verified,partially verified,not verified, orinconclusive, with supporting evidence. - Timeline: short sequence from trigger to correction or impact.
- Root cause: the specific contract gap, repo conflict, or agent noncompliance pattern.
- Responsible contract gap: skill, project instruction, task doc, or none.
- Recommended fix: exact file(s), section(s), and proposed wording or behavior change.
- Validation plan: commands or checks to prove the fix.
- Confidence and evidence gaps: what is known, what could not be verified, and whether
$analyze-sessionsis needed for recurrence analysis. - Recommended next skill:
$targeted-skill-builder,$create-agentic-skill,$analyze-sessions, ornonewhen no follow-up is justified.
Constraints
- Start narrow and evidence-bound; do not scan all local history by default.
- Do not claim a user-identified issue is agent-verified without independent evidence.
- Do not modify the target skill during analysis unless the user also asked for implementation and the active workflow permits edits.
- Do not recommend a skill change when the evidence points only to one-off agent noncompliance and the contract is already clear.
- Do not create or suggest
$analyze-session; use$session-triage. - Do not create or modify GitHub Actions workflows.
- If a source is missing or unreadable, report that clearly and continue with available evidence instead of guessing.
Default Shipping Contract
Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.