Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

incident-analyzing事件分析

Agent Skill

incident-analyzing 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

349

周安装

14

GitHub Stars

5

下载量

113
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:incident-analyzing(事件分析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/wizeline/sdlc-agents
仓库路径:skills/incident-analyzing
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/wizeline/sdlc-agents --skill incident-analyzing
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/wizeline/sdlc-agents --skill incident-analyzing

简介

incident-analyzing 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中快速定位候选结果。

  • 适用于事件分析与根因调查相关的信息检索任务。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装,需结合原始 README 确认具体用法。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态及是否触发联网或文件操作。
  • 当前无详细功能描述,建议查阅来源仓库获取完整使用说明。

SKILL.md

Incident Root Cause Analysis Skill

Your job is to move from symptom to cause — not just to note that two things happened at the same time, but to establish that one caused the other. You do this through structured hypothesis testing, reading actual code and logs, and eliminating competing explanations until one remains.


RCA Methodology

Work through these four steps explicitly. Don't skip to conclusions.

Step 1: Form a hypothesis

State the most probable root cause based on the symptom, timing, and any context provided. Be specific — name the service, function, query, dependency, or config value you suspect.

Example: "Hypothesis A: DB connection pool exhausted due to a connection leak introduced in UserService.fetchProfile() in the v2.4.1 deploy 2 hours ago."

Vague hypotheses like "it might be a DB issue" are not useful — they don't tell you what evidence to look for next.

Step 2: Identify discriminating evidence

For each hypothesis, specify what telemetry would confirm it and what would refute it. Then go get that evidence — read the log file, run the diagnostic command, read the source file.

Hypothesis A — DB connection pool exhaustion
  Confirms: pool utilization metric at 100%; pg_stat_activity shows idle connections holding
  Refutes:  pool utilization below 80%; errors started immediately at deploy (not hours later)

Never theorize about code you can read directly.

Step 3: Test and update

State explicitly whether the evidence confirms or refutes the hypothesis.

"The pool utilization metric shows only 60% — this refutes Hypothesis A. The error timeline shows the spike began immediately at deploy, not hours later. Updating to Hypothesis B: ORM lazy loading behavior changed in the SQLAlchemy 1.4→2.0 upgrade bundled in this deploy, causing N+1 queries on the /api/user endpoint."

Keep cycling until one hypothesis survives all available evidence.

Step 4: Write the causal chain

Once converged, output the causal chain in this format. Every arrow must be a causal step, not a correlation.

[SQLAlchemy 2.0 upgrade in deploy v2.4.1]
  → [lazy loading disabled by default — relationship queries no longer batched]
    → [N+1 queries on every /api/user call — 1 query per user record instead of 1 total]
      → [DB CPU at 100%, query latency 8s average]
        → [HTTP 504s for all authenticated endpoints]
          → [checkout flow broken for all logged-in users]

Stack Trace Analysis

When given a stack trace or error log:

  1. Identify the exception type — what class of error is this? (OOM, NPE, connection error, timeout, deserialization failure, deadlock)
  2. Find the origin frame — the first frame in the developer's own code, not framework or library internals. That's where investigation starts.
  3. Classify the error pattern — see the table below for known signatures
  4. Determine novelty — new error (never appeared before) or regression (was working, now broken)?
  5. Extract correlation/trace IDs — if present, use them to link log lines across services into a single timeline

In minified JS environments: note that vendor.js:L:C coordinates require source map resolution to identify the actual file and line. Flag this and ask for the .map file or unminified source if available.

Known error pattern signatures

Exception / Log PatternMost Likely CauseFirst Diagnostic Step
connection pool timeout / too many connectionsConnection pool exhaustion or leakCheck pool utilization metric over time; look for missing close() in error paths
OOMKilled / Java heap space / heap out of memoryMemory leak or undersized limitPlot memory metric since last deploy — linear climb = leak, step change = new allocation
deadlock found / lock wait timeout exceededDB lock contentionCheck for long-running transactions or missing index on a recently changed query
certificate has expired / SSL handshake failedCert expiryopenssl s_client -connect <host>:443 — check notAfter field
no such host / name resolution failedDNS / service discovery failurenslookup <service>, check k8s service and endpoints
upstream timeout / 504 Gateway TimeoutSlow downstream dependencyFind the slow span in distributed trace; test latency directly with curl -w "%{time_total}"
FATAL ERROR: Allocation failed (Node.js)V8 heap exhaustedCheck --max-old-space-size setting; profile heap with --inspect

Microservices Topology Reasoning

When the incident spans multiple services, read references/topology-patterns.md for detailed failure signatures and diagnosis commands.

Core approach:

  • Use correlation/trace IDs to link log lines across services into a unified timeline
  • Identify the origin service (first to show the error) vs propagation services (downstream victims that appear broken but are actually just receiving failures)
  • The origin service is where RCA focuses — propagation services self-heal once the origin is fixed
  • Draw a simplified call graph with the failure point annotated; this helps identify the blast radius

Phase 3: Impact Assessment

Before handing off to remediation, quantify the blast radius. This determines which remediation options are acceptable (a risky rollback is warranted for P0 data loss; it's not warranted for a P3 cosmetic issue).

IMPACT ASSESSMENT
─────────────────
Users Affected  : [number or % of traffic — be specific about which user segment]
Revenue Path    : [yes — [flow name] | no]
Error Budget    : [X% remaining this month | already breached | unknown]
Downstream      : [services that will fail or degrade if this continues]
Data Integrity  : [safe | at risk — [what data] | compromised — [what data]]

Answer this explicitly: Is a revenue-generating flow currently broken? This single question drives the P0 vs P1 boundary more than anything else.


Reference Files

Load these during investigation — don't try to recall failure patterns from memory:

  • references/topology-patterns.md — Diagnostic signatures, discriminating evidence, and exact Bash/SQL commands for 10 common distributed systems failure classes. Read when you need to match a symptom to a known pattern.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

37.02%
按下载量换算42

Claude

29.1%
按下载量换算33

Cursor

17.26%
按下载量换算20

Gemini CLI

8.97%
按下载量换算10

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills