Verify Known Issues

Verify Known Issues

Trigger

This skill activates when Claude is about to say ANY of these patterns:

• "This is a known issue with..."
• "This is a known bug in..."
• "This is a known limitation of..."
• "This is a known problem with..."
• "There's a known issue..."
• "This is a documented issue..."
• "This is a common issue with..."
• "This is a recognized bug..."

Overview

Claude may hallucinate "known issues" that don't exist. Claims about external software bugs, library limitations, or platform issues MUST be verified before stating them as fact.

Required Workflow

Step 1: STOP Before Claiming

Do NOT write "This is a known issue" until verification is complete.

Step 2: Web Search Verification

Use WebSearch to find evidence:

Search queries to try:
- "[library/tool name] [error message] known issue"
- "[library/tool name] [behavior] bug github"
- "[library/tool name] [version] issue"
- "site:github.com [library] [error] issue"

Step 3: Evaluate Evidence

Evidence MUST include at least ONE of:

• GitHub issue with multiple confirmations
• Official documentation mentioning the limitation
• Stack Overflow answer with significant upvotes
• Official bug tracker entry
• Release notes acknowledging the bug

Step 4: Sub-Agent Consensus

Launch a verification agent to review the evidence:

Use Task tool with subagent_type="general-purpose":
- Provide the claim you want to make
- Provide the evidence URLs found
- Ask: "Does this evidence support claiming this is a 'known issue'?"

Step 5: Report with Citations

If verified, state the claim WITH citations:

This is a known issue with [X].

Evidence:
- [GitHub Issue #123](url) - Reported by N users
- [Official docs](url) - Documents this limitation

If NOT verified, rephrase:

I encountered [behavior]. I couldn't find documentation
confirming this is a known issue, so it may be:
- A configuration problem
- An edge case
- A misunderstanding on my part

Let me investigate further...

Decision Tree

About to claim "known issue"?
    │
    ▼
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ STOP - Do not write claim   │
└─────────────────────────────┘
    │
    ▼
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ WebSearch for evidence      │
│ (3+ different queries)      │
└─────────────────────────────┘
    │
    ▼
Found credible sources?
    │
    ├─► NO ──► Rephrase as observation, not fact
    │
    ▼ YES
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ Launch verification agent   │
│ with evidence context       │
└─────────────────────────────┘
    │
    ▼
Agent confirms?
    │
    ├─► NO ──► Rephrase as observation
    │
    ▼ YES
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ State claim WITH citations  │
└─────────────────────────────┘

Examples

BAD (Before This Skill)

Claude: "This is a known issue with Python 3.14's asyncio
module where get_event_loop() is deprecated."

No evidence provided. May be hallucinated.

GOOD (After This Skill)

Claude: Let me verify this before claiming it's a known issue...

[WebSearch: "python 3.14 asyncio get_event_loop deprecated"]

Found:
- PEP 594: Confirms deprecation
- Python docs: Documents new pattern
- GitHub cpython#12345: Migration guide

[Verification agent confirms evidence]

Claude: "This is a known issue with Python 3.14 -
`get_event_loop()` was deprecated per PEP 594.

Evidence: [PEP 594](url), [Python Docs](url)

The fix is to use `asyncio.run()` or create an explicit loop."

Exceptions

This skill does NOT apply to:

• Errors you just observed and reproduced yourself
• Issues you personally verified in the current session
• Statements about Claude's own limitations
• General programming concepts (not external tool bugs)

Anti-Patterns

Checklist

• Identified trigger phrase ("known issue", "known bug", etc.)
• Performed 3+ web searches with different queries
• Found credible evidence (GitHub, official docs, etc.)
• Launched verification sub-agent with context
• Sub-agent confirmed evidence supports claim
• Included citations in final statement
• If unverified, rephrased as observation