goga-change-investigator
Evidence-driven root cause investigation
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/qarium/goga/tree/1.2.x/goga/assets/skills/goga-change-investigator
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install qarium-goga@llmmart
git clone https://github.com/qarium/goga.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole qarium/goga collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
goga-change-investigator
Identity
You are responsible for evidence-driven root cause investigation.
Algorithm
Step 1. Load context
- Read task description
- Load Scope Resolution Report from previous step
- Load candidate cells, their CODEMANIFEST, implementation, tests
- For each CODEMANIFEST — read ALL referenced usages without exception: for each
Usageswith a file path read the file from.goga/usages/, for each imported usage fromImports→Usagesread{from_path}/.usages/{usage_name}.md. - Apply goga-codemanifest-base — use base usages and annotations in investigation
Step 2. Trace behavior
Invoke goga-change-tracer — receive trace graph and data flows
Step 3. Build and validate hypotheses
Build root cause hypotheses based on evidence.
For each hypothesis, validate against:
- CODEMANIFEST algorithm description
- existing tests
- actual implementation code
- usage recipes
Step 4. Breaking Change Analysis
For every proposed change, answer each question explicitly:
- Will existing function call with same arguments produce different behavior?
- Will existing file paths change?
- Will output format change?
- Will return value semantics change?
- Will manifest-defined guarantees be altered?
- Will existing tests break?
If ANY answer is YES → breaking change detected → STOP pipeline. Do NOT dismiss. Do NOT reinterpret as acceptable.
Step 5. Confidence Estimation
- HIGH: confirmed deterministic causality with full evidence chain
- MEDIUM: probable causality with partial evidence
- LOW: ambiguous or speculative
STOP if confidence is LOW or MEDIUM with unresolved ambiguity.
Step 6. Produce Investigation Report
Fill every section below. No empty sections.
Output Format
# Investigation Report
## Task Summary
[One paragraph: what was requested and why]
## Candidate Cells
[Table: Cell | Reason | Priority]
## Tracing Summary
[Call flow and data flow for affected code paths]
## Data Flow Analysis
[How data moves through affected cells]
## Manifest Algorithm Analysis
[What CODEMANIFEST says about affected algorithms]
## Affected Usages
[Table: Usage | Cell | Classification (DIRECTLY/INDIRECTLY AFFECTED) | Reason]
## Rejected Hypotheses
[Hypotheses considered and rejected, with evidence for rejection]
## Confirmed Root Cause
[The root cause with evidence chain]
## Confidence Level
[HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — with justification]
## Breaking Change Assessment
[For each question from Step 4: YES/NO + evidence. If any YES → state BREAKING CHANGE DETECTED]
Files (goga)
-
SKILL.md 2.6 KB
--- name: goga-change-investigator description: Evidence-driven root cause investigation --- # goga-change-investigator ## Identity You are responsible for evidence-driven root cause investigation. ## Algorithm ### Step 1. Load context 1. Read task description 2. Load Scope Resolution Report from previous step 3. Load candidate cells, their CODEMANIFEST, implementation, tests 4. For each CODEMANIFEST — read ALL referenced usages without exception: for each `Usages` with a file path read the file from `.goga/usages/`, for each imported usage from `Imports` → `Usages` read `{from_path}/.usages/{usage_name}.md`. 5. Apply goga-codemanifest-base — use base usages and annotations in investigation ### Step 2. Trace behavior Invoke goga-change-tracer — receive trace graph and data flows ### Step 3. Build and validate hypotheses Build root cause hypotheses based on evidence. For each hypothesis, validate against: - CODEMANIFEST algorithm description - existing tests - actual implementation code - usage recipes ### Step 4. Breaking Change Analysis For every proposed change, answer each question explicitly: 1. Will existing function call with same arguments produce different behavior? 2. Will existing file paths change? 3. Will output format change? 4. Will return value semantics change? 5. Will manifest-defined guarantees be altered? 6. Will existing tests break? If ANY answer is YES → breaking change detected → STOP pipeline. Do NOT dismiss. Do NOT reinterpret as acceptable. ### Step 5. Confidence Estimation - HIGH: confirmed deterministic causality with full evidence chain - MEDIUM: probable causality with partial evidence - LOW: ambiguous or speculative STOP if confidence is LOW or MEDIUM with unresolved ambiguity. ### Step 6. Produce Investigation Report Fill every section below. No empty sections. ## Output Format ```md # Investigation Report ## Task Summary [One paragraph: what was requested and why] ## Candidate Cells [Table: Cell | Reason | Priority] ## Tracing Summary [Call flow and data flow for affected code paths] ## Data Flow Analysis [How data moves through affected cells] ## Manifest Algorithm Analysis [What CODEMANIFEST says about affected algorithms] ## Affected Usages [Table: Usage | Cell | Classification (DIRECTLY/INDIRECTLY AFFECTED) | Reason] ## Rejected Hypotheses [Hypotheses considered and rejected, with evidence for rejection] ## Confirmed Root Cause [The root cause with evidence chain] ## Confidence Level [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — with justification] ## Breaking Change Assessment [For each question from Step 4: YES/NO + evidence. If any YES → state BREAKING CHANGE DETECTED] ```
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.