Skip to main content
#1
Ranked #1 of 256 in this category· 该品类排名 #1 / 共 256 个

Incident Investigate

by Evan Hsu·3mo ago

No fixes until the cause is real.

原因还没坐实之前,不急着修。

Development & EngineeringCodexClaude Codelocal terminalsLow risk · 低风险open source · 开源

Before you install安装前须知

No special access needs declared未声明特殊权限需求
Editor's verdict· 编辑结论

Best for incidents where the fastest reflex would be the wrong fix. Forces an evidence-before-action loop: collect logs, list candidate hypotheses, verify each, only then propose a change. Pays for itself the moment it catches the kind of incident where "just restart it" would have masked a real data-integrity problem. Skip it for obviously cosmetic regressions — the cost of slowing down outweighs the cost of a re-deploy there.

在那种「第一反应反而是错的」事故里它最有用。强制走「证据—假设—验证—再动手」的顺序:先收集日志,列出候选假设,逐个验证,最后才提修复方案。只要救下一次本该用「重启就好」掩盖掉的真实数据完整性问题,回报就够了。但纯样式回归就别用它了,等回滚比慢思考更划算。

— Editorial team · 编辑团队

Install via Skills CLI

Use npx skills add to install this skill into the selected agent. Phase 0 commands are generated from source rules, not verified.

Codex
npx skills add https://github.com/evan-hsu/incident-investigate -g -a codex -y

Drop `-g` to install project-locally

Best for适合什么场景

  • Root-cause analysis根因分析
  • Flaky bug investigation不稳定 bug 调查
  • Post-incident summaries事故后总结

Not for不适合什么场景

  • Quick cosmetic fixes快速样式修补
  • Tasks with no evidence available没有证据的任务
  • Final production changes without review未获用户确认的最终生产变更

vs alternativesvs 其他选择

Full compare table完整对比表 →
QA Loop

Open the product, try the flow, fix what breaks, repeat.

4.9·15k stars
diff · 差异Best browser QA pick when you need evidence to leave a paper trail. Each run produces screenshots, console diffs, and a reproducible action log — much harder for stakeholders to wave off than "I tested it locally." Works well as a pre-merge gate and for filing bugs with repro steps attached. Not for unit tests, and not for authenticated production sessions where the screenshot itself becomes a data risk.
GStack Investigate

No fixes until the root cause is real.

4.8·123k stars
diff · 差异Best when the bug lives inside the code itself, not in operational state. Same "no fixes until the root cause is real" discipline as incident-investigate, but biased toward static code investigation: reads suspect modules, builds a hypothesis tree, asks for a failing test or repro before proposing a change. Strongest on flaky tests and intermittent failures where shallow patches make things worse. For ops-side incidents (logs, traffic, infra), incident-investigate fits better.
Canary Watch

Verify the live deploy before users tell you it is broken.

4.6·8.2k stars
diff · 差异Best for the 10–30 minutes right after a deploy hits production, when "we already verified in staging" starts to wear thin. Hits a curated list of critical routes, watches for console errors, broken pages, and visual diffs against baseline. Lightweight by design — it is not a synthetic monitoring platform. Pair with release-briefing for the comms side. Don't use it as a substitute for pre-merge QA; that's qa-loop or gstack-qa's job.

Side-by-side compare维度对比

Key differences with same-lane alternatives
this skill · 当前Incident InvestigateQA LoopGStack InvestigateCanary Watch
Rating · 评分4.84.94.84.6
Stars · 星标10k15k123k8.2k
Risk · 风险Low risk · 低风险Medium risk · 中风险Low risk · 低风险Medium risk · 中风险
Best for · 最适合Root-cause analysisBrowser smoke testsNo fixes until the root cause is real.Verify the live deploy before users tell you it is broken.
Not for · 不适合Quick cosmetic fixesPure unit testingWorkflows that require stronger human review than this catalog entry documents.Workflows that require stronger human review than this catalog entry documents.

Audit notes审计备注

last reviewed 2026-06-10 · 复查
Source源码open on GitHub · 公开
Author作者community · 社区!
Network网络访问read-only · 只读
Filesystem文件写入sandboxed · 沙箱
Dependencies依赖audited · 已审计
Telemetry遥测none · 无
Skill Market
Find the best AI skills for the job·按品类找最好用的 AI 技能
v0.4 · 1306 skills indexed · last review 2026-06-10