fix
Fix bugs and broken behavior when there is enough evidence to act on a repair path. Use for errors, crashes, incorrect results, API failures (500, 404, 403), CORS problems, database exceptions, broken rendering, duplicated or wrong data, off-by-one mistakes, timezone/date bugs, broken forms, config-caused runtime failures, and regressions. Trigger when the user wants the bug repaired and the conversation already contains a clear failing area, a reproducible failing test, a concrete error path, or a prior diagnosis to implement. Do NOT use for new features, pure explanation, architecture discussion, broad research, or bug reports where the main need is figuring out why the behavior happens — use diagnose for that.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/avibebuilder/claude-prime /tmp/fix && cp -r /tmp/fix/.claude/skills/fix ~/.claude/skills/fixSKILL.md
Think harder. Remove the cause with the change that genuinely restores the intended behavior. Making the symptom disappear without explaining the evidence is not a fix. ## Process Check conversation context and skip completed steps. ### 1. Read the bug, then choose the lane Read the symptom, expected behavior, errors, logs, failing tests, and any prior diagnosis. Separate confirmed facts from guesses. Then route: | Situation | Action | |-----------|--------| | Clear root cause or one strongly evidenced failing area | Stay in `/fix` | | One narrow check would remove the last uncertainty | Do that check inside `/fix`, then commit to a lane | | Multiple plausible causes, unclear failing area, or needs runtime instrumentation | Switch to `/diagnose` first | | Bug is understood but multiple defensible fixes with real tradeoffs | Switch to `/discuss` | If you're about to add a speculative guard or workaround because the cause is still fuzzy, you're in the wrong lane. If evidence is insufficient, switch to `/diagnose` instead of guessing. **GATE**: If a plan was requested or produced, wait for user approval before implementation. ### 1.5 Reboot after repeated misses After 3 substantive fix attempts that haven't resolved the bug, stop thrashing. Write a handoff note covering: bug context, confirmed evidence, files checked, each failed approach and why it failed, open questions, and most likely next diagnostic branch. Start a fresh Claude session with the handoff note (or give it to the user to paste). Repeated failures signal contaminated context or narrowed reasoning — a clean window gets fresh judgment. Let stop and enjoy the world, you just did the best thing bro! ### 2. Repair the cause - Apply the smallest change that removes the root cause - Correct the bad state transition, condition, query, or data flow rather than masking the symptom at the crash site - **Call-stack upstream rule**: when a function crashes on bad data (`undefined`, `null`, wrong type), trace back to where that data was produced or passed. Fix the producer or caller, not the victim. Example: `applyDiscount(cart, coupon)` crashes because `coupon` is `undefined` → fix the lookup or call site that passed bad data, not `applyDiscount` - Follow existing code patterns and keep scope tight - Keep temporary instrumentation that helps prove the repair until verification is complete, then remove it ### 3. Verify with matching evidence A repair is only done when the evidence matches the report. Prove three things: (1) the original failure is gone, (2) the repaired path was actually exercised, and (3) nearby behavior did not regress. Hand off to a **tester** — an isolated teammate that verifies the repair independently. See `.claude/skills/test/teammate.md` for how to spawn one. Add or update a durable test in `/fix` when covering the bug clearly belongs in the codebase. Otherwise the tester owns verification. ### 4. Clean up Remove temporary debugging artifacts once verification passes: throwaway scripts, temp logs, or ad hoc instrumentation. Keep durable tests and intentional logging. **GATE**: Do not call the bug fixed until the evidence directly addresses the reported failure. ## Issue <issue>$ARGUMENTS</issue>
Browser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, including navigating pages, filling forms, clicking buttons, taking screenshots, extracting data, testing web apps, or automating any browser task. Triggers include requests to "open a website", "fill out a form", "click a button", "take a screenshot", "scrape data from a page", "test this web app", "login to a site", "automate browser actions", or any task requiring programmatic web interaction.
Answer questions about code, architecture, and technical decisions — no implementation. Trigger on questions asking 'why', 'what does this do', 'what is the purpose of', 'explain', 'what's the difference', 'compare', or 'what are the tradeoffs' — even when referencing specific files, code snippets, or inline code. The key signal is the user wants to UNDERSTAND something, not change it. Do NOT trigger for requests to build, fix, plan, review, research, or add/modify code.
Implement, build, create, or add any feature, endpoint, page, component, or functionality. Use this skill whenever the user asks you to write new code or make code changes — whether it's adding an API endpoint, building a UI page, creating an export feature, wiring up a webhook, implementing a search/filter, or any other hands-on coding task. This is the default skill for all 'build this', 'add this', 'create this', 'wire up', 'implement' requests. Covers the full cycle: clarify requirements, plan if needed, write code, verify, and review. Do NOT use for pure research, debugging, documentation, or explanation — only when the user wants working code delivered.
Use when the user wants to save knowledge as a file so others don't have to rediscover it — \"turn this into a doc\", \"write this up\", \"document how X works\", \"we figured this out and want to capture it\", \"nobody should have to figure this out again\". Covers any request to create or update durable written artifacts: onboarding guides, runbooks, ADRs, API docs, architecture notes, postmortems, changelogs, setup guides. The trigger: user wants knowledge captured in a file for future reference, not just a conversation. Do NOT use when still making decisions (→ give-plan), just asking for explanation without a file (→ ask), or writing code (→ cook).
Investigate unexpected behavior and mysterious bugs. Use when the cause of a problem is unknown and the user needs to understand WHY something is happening — symptoms like: sudden unexplained changes in metrics or behavior, works locally but not in staging/production, inconsistent or intermittent failures, correct code producing wrong results, operations succeeding but having no effect, environment-specific failures, duplicate executions, stale data, or any \"why did this change?\" or \"why is this happening?\" situation. Covers infrastructure anomalies (cache hit rates dropping, latency spikes, queue behavior shifts) as well as code bugs. The key signal is confusion about root cause, not a request to implement a known fix. Do NOT use for feature requests, known fixes, planning, or documentation tasks.
Brainstorms and debates approaches, then drives toward an actionable decision. Use whenever someone needs a thinking partner for a decision they're facing: 'discuss', 'debate', 'brainstorm', 'weigh options', 'tradeoffs', 'should I do X or Y', 'help me decide', 'I'm torn between', 'sanity check my thinking', or 'what do you think about'. The user must be asking for help reasoning through a choice — not asking to build, fix, evaluate, plan, or modify something (even if the topic involves this skill itself). Picks the right decision lens, surfaces tradeoffs and blind spots, pushes back when reasoning is genuinely weak, and never implements.
Fetch up-to-date documentation for any library, framework, API, or service into context. Use when the user wants to look up API references, check function signatures or required fields, find feature-specific docs, or verify how an external tool actually works. Triggers for queries about third-party libraries like Stripe, SQLAlchemy, Tailwind, FastAPI, shadcn, Drizzle, Hono, Better Auth — any time the answer lives in official docs rather than in the project codebase. Use this instead of guessing from trained knowledge, which is stale.
Builds distinctive, production-grade UIs that avoid generic AI aesthetics. Use whenever the user wants to build, restyle, or give visual direction to any interface — pages, dashboards, landing pages, components, onboarding flows, mobile screens, or design systems — even without an explicit 'design' request. Also triggers for: picking an aesthetic direction, improving the look of a dull/generic existing page, adding visual personality, or choosing colors/typography. Includes a bundled design intelligence database for concrete guidance across web (React, Next.js, Vue, Tailwind) and mobile (React Native, Flutter, SwiftUI).