Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索执行命令clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

problem-solving-methodology问题解决方法

Agent Skill

problem-solving-methodology 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 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

16,746

周安装

712

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

5,867
OpenClaw

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

MIT-0

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:problem-solving-methodology(问题解决方法)
来源仓库:https://github.com/lovensky1992-wk/problem-solving-methodology
安装命令:
openclaw skills install problem-solving-methodology
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 OpenClaw 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。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install problem-solving-methodology

简介

使用时:(1) 问题原因不清楚需要调查/“分析一下这个问题”/“排查一下”,(2) 之前的修复尝试失败了,(3) 问题涉及多个组件交互/“为什么会这样”/“调查一下原因”,(4) 修改风险有或答案/“诊断一下”,(5) 用户明确要求先分析再修复。

SKILL.md

name
problem-solving
version
1.0.0
description
>

Structured Problem Solving

When to Use This vs. Direct Fix

Direct fix (skip this skill):

  • Error message points to exact cause
  • One-line config/code fix
  • You've seen this exact problem before

Use this skill:

  • You'd need to say "可能是..." to explain the cause
  • 2+ components involved
  • You already tried a fix that didn't work
  • Wrong fix could cause data loss, privacy leak, or downtime

The Process

Step 0: Question Dissolution (消解层)

Before solving, check if the problem itself is valid. Many problems dissolve when examined properly.

Run these 3 checks sequentially. If any check dissolves the problem, stop and tell the user — a dissolved problem is more valuable than a solved one.

0.1 Language Trap Detection (语言陷阱)

Does the problem statement contain vague, undefined key terms?

Common trap words: "优化" "合适" "更好" "正常" "应该" "稳定"

Test: Can you give a measurable or actionable definition for every key term? If not, the problem can't be solved because it hasn't been stated.

→ If trapped: Ask the user to define the vague term. "你说的'优化'具体指什么?响应时间从 X 降到 Y?还是内存占用?还是用户体验?"

0.2 Hidden Assumption Check (假设检验)

Rewrite the problem as: "This problem assumes X. Is X true?"

Common false assumptions:

  • "系统变慢了" → assumes it was faster before (was it? measured when?)
  • "用户不喜欢这个功能" → assumes users have tried it (have they? data?)
  • "我们需要加这个功能" → assumes the current system can't do it (can it?)

→ If assumption is false: Tell the user. "你的问题假设了「X」,但这个前提可能不成立。如果 X 不成立,问题就消失了。"

0.3 Question vs. Problem Classification

  • Question: Has a standard answer, can be resolved by looking it up or reading docs

- → Answer directly, don't enter the full diagnostic process

  • Problem: No standard answer, requires investigation + experimentation

- → Continue to Step 1

If the problem survives all 3 checks, proceed to full diagnosis.


Step 1: Define the Problem

Turn vague "something's wrong" into a precise statement.

问题:[一句话]
现象:[具体发生了什么]
预期:[应该是什么样]
影响:[谁受影响,严重程度]
可复现:[是/否,触发条件]

Rules:

  • Describe what you observe, not what you think caused it
  • "webchat replies appear in DingTalk group" = problem ✅
  • "origin got polluted" = hypothesis, not problem ❌

Step 2: Diagnose

Do not skip to fixing. Trace the data flow end-to-end first.

2.1 Map the call chain

Input → Step A → Step B → Step C → Output
          ↓          ↓          ↓
        Check      Check      Check

2.2 Verify each step

Read actual values (logs, state files, source code). Do not guess.

2.3 Narrow down

Find the first step where output diverges from expected. That's where the bug is.

2.4 Confirm root cause

Three questions before you declare root cause:

  1. Why? — Explain the mechanism, not just the symptom
  2. Sufficient? — If I fix this, will the problem definitely disappear?
  3. Unique? — Is there another cause that could produce the same symptom?

All three must be answered. If not → keep diagnosing.

Diagnostic tools (prefer in order):

  1. Error messages / logs (fastest)
  2. State inspection (config files, DB, session store)
  3. Source code tracing (most reliable)
  4. Minimal reproduction experiment

Step 3: Design Solutions

Generate at least 2 candidate solutions. Compare on:

DimensionQuestion
EffectivenessFixes root cause or just symptom?
RiskCould it break something else?
ComplexityHow many components touched?
ReversibilityCan we roll back if wrong?
DurabilitySurvives restarts / updates?
Side effectsImpact on other features?

Present as:

方案 A:[one line]
  ✅ [pros]  ⚠️ [risks]

方案 B:[one line]
  ✅ [pros]  ⚠️ [risks]

→ 推荐 A,因为 [reason]

Always include the "do nothing / workaround" option if viable.

Step 4: Execute

Pre-flight checklist:

  • [ ] Root cause confirmed (not guessed)
  • [ ] Solution evaluated (not first idea)
  • [ ] User confirmed (for risky changes)
  • [ ] Rollback plan ready

Rules:

  • Change one variable at a time
  • Record what was changed and what it was before
  • Minimize scope — don't "fix other things while you're at it"

Step 5: Verify

Three levels of verification:

  1. Direct: Reproduce original trigger → problem gone?
  2. Regression: Related features still work?
  3. Durability: Survives restart / next trigger?

Show evidence, don't say "应该好了".

Step 6: Review

## 复盘:[问题名]
耗时:X 分钟(有效 Y / 弯路 Z)
根因:[一句话]
修复:[一句话]
弯路:[走了什么弯路]
教训:[提炼的规则]

Write lessons to .learnings/ if reusable.

诊断超时与死胡同处理

信号动作
同一假设连续 3 次验证无结论停止,换假设或换诊断维度
累计诊断 >15 分钟无进展暂停,向用户汇报已排除项 + 当前卡点,询问是否有额外线索
累计尝试 >5 个假设均被否定考虑问题是否需要消解(回 Step 0)或需要更多上下文
修复后问题复现不叠加补丁,回退到修复前状态,重新走 Step 1

Anti-patterns

PatternWhat it looks likeFix
Guess-and-fixSee symptom → hypothesize → change immediatelyMap call chain first
One-end-onlyCheck only input or outputTrace full data flow
Surface fixChange the bad value without asking why it's badAsk "why did it become this value?"
Multi-changeChange 3 things at onceOne variable at a time
Premature victory"Should be fixed now" without checkingShow evidence
No rollbackForget to record original valuesBackup before modify

Communication During Problem-Solving

  • Define: Confirm understanding ("你说的问题是 X 对吗?")
  • Diagnose: Share progress, don't go silent ("在查 Y 环节,发现了 Z")
  • Design: Give choices, not just one option
  • Execute: Confirm before risky operations
  • Verify: Ask user to check on their end
  • Throughout: Say "I'm not sure yet" over false confidence

下一步建议(条件触发)

问题解决后,根据结果判断是否推荐下一步。

触发条件推荐
根因是代码 bug,修复需要多文件改动「根因清楚了,修复交给 coding-agent spawn Claude Code 来做。」
问题根因值得记录(同类问题可能再犯)「这个教训值得记下来,写到 .learnings/ 防止再犯。」
问题在消解层被消解(问题本身不成立)「问题已经消解了。如果背后有更大的决策要做,可以拉出来单独讨论。」
诊断过程发现系统架构层面的隐患「这次修好了,但架构上还有隐患。要不要排个时间做一次 healthcheck?」

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

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

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

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

OpenClaw

79.23%
按下载量换算4,648

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 openclaw skills install problem-solving-methodology 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

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