Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Triage PostHog error tracking issues during a daily or on-call review. Use when the user asks \"what's broken?\", \"what new errors do we have?\", \"show me top errors today\", \"what should I look at this morning\", or wants a prioritized list of active issues to work on. Surfaces new and high-impact issues, ranks by users affected and recency, points at linked replays, and proposes next actions
.claude/skills/kunanonj-cursor-plugin-posthog-triaging-error-issues/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 97% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 149% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 8% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 84% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -7% | 0% |
When a user asks "what's broken?" or wants a daily error review, the goal is a short prioritized list of issues worth a human's attention — not a dump of every active issue. Most projects have hundreds of active issues; the few that matter are usually new (first seen in the last 24-48h), spiking, or affecting many distinct users.
| Tool | Purpose | | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | posthog:query-error-tracking-issues-list | List + rank issues with aggregate metrics (occurrences, users, sessions) | | posthog:query-error-tracking-issue | Compact details for a single issue (status, assignee, top frame, release) | | posthog:query-error-tracking-issue-events | Sampled $exception events with stack, URL, browser, and $session_id | | posthog:query-session-recordings-list | Find replays of users hitting an issue | | posthog:inbox-reports-list | Pre-curated actionable signals if the project uses Inbox |
Read the time window from the user's wording. Defaults if unspecified:
dateRange: { date_from: "-24h" }-7d-24hPick what "matters" means:
orderBy: "first_seen", orderDirection: "DESC", tight window.Catches regressions introduced by recent deploys.
orderBy: "users" ranks by distinct users affected. Better thanraw occurrences for severity (one bot loop produces many occurrences but one user).
orderBy: "occurrences" over a short window vs a longer baselineto spot spikes.
Start narrow and widen if too few issues come back:
jsonposthog:query-error-tracking-issues-list { "status": "active", "orderBy": "users", "orderDirection": "DESC", "dateRange": { "date_from": "-24h" }, "limit": 20, "volumeResolution": 24 }
Match volumeResolution to the window (24 buckets for -24h, 14 for -14d, etc.) so each row's sparkline has enough resolution to show a spike vs flat steady state. A single bucket only gives a total, not a shape.
For new-issues-only, run a parallel query with orderBy: "first_seen":
json{ "status": "active", "orderBy": "first_seen", "orderDirection": "DESC", "dateRange": { "date_from": "-24h" }, "limit": 10 }
If a project mixes browser and server SDKs, the top-by-users list is usually drowned by server-side errors (each invocation often gets a fresh distinct_id). Narrow with the library filter — values match the SDK's $lib, not the npm package name, examples:
web — posthog-js (browser)posthog-node, posthog-python, posthog-ruby, posthog-go, posthog-php, posthog-java, posthog-elixir — server SDKsposthog-edge — Cloudflare Workers / edge runtimeposthog-ios, posthog-android, posthog-react-native, posthog-flutter — mobileThe list will include known noise. Before presenting, drop or call out:
lives with them. Surface them only if they're in the top by users.
flag for suppression (suppressing-noisy-errors) instead of triage.
If unsure whether an issue is new vs. recurring, compare first_seen to the start of the window:
first_seen inside the window → new, worth attentionfirst_seen weeks ago but spiking now → regression worth attentionfirst_seen weeks ago, flat volume → background noiseFor the top 3-5 candidates, pull a sample exception so the summary includes a stack frame and URL, not just a title. Use posthog:query-error-tracking-issue-events rather than raw SQL — it returns normalized fields ($exception_types, $exception_values, $current_url, browser/OS, $session_id) and defaults to onlyAppFrames: true to strip vendor noise from the stack:
jsonposthog:query-error-tracking-issue-events { "issueId": "<issue_id>", "limit": 1, "verbosity": "stack" }
If the user wants to see what users were doing, hand off to finding-replay-for-issue to pick the best linked recording. Don't fetch replays for every triaged issue — only the ones the user asks to dig into.
Lead with a one-line headline ("3 new issues in last 24h, 1 spike, 5 active high-impact"). Then a short table sorted by your chosen signal:
| Issue | First seen | Users | Sessions | Sample message | Suggested action | | ----- | ---------- | ----- | -------- | --------------------------------- | -------------------------- | | ... | 2h ago | 142 | 198 | TypeError ... at checkout.js:42 | Investigate | | ... | spike | 67 | 89 | Network request failed | Watch — likely transient | | ... | 3d ago | 12 | 12 | chrome-extension:// timeout | Suppress (extension noise) |
For each, suggest one of: investigate (investigating-error-issue), assign (error-tracking-issues-partial-update), suppress (suppressing-noisy-errors), merge (grouping-noisy-errors), or resolve if it's already known fixed.
share a properties.$lib_version (or properties.$exception_releases when the SDK is configured to populate it), present them grouped — a rollback decision rests on the cluster, not any one issue.
without a real distinct_id concept, fall back to sessions or occurrences.
user decide. Bulk actions belong in dedicated skills.
posthog:inbox-reports-list), check it first — PostHogmay have already curated the most actionable issues so you avoid re-deriving them.
/error_tracking/<id>) for each row so the user can jumpstraight to the issue page if they want to drill down themselves.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 11,867 | 6,703 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,842 | 2,250 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 7,790 | 5,944 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,294 | 1,855 | +43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 4,701 | 5,005 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 664 | 1,849 | +178% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 7,065 | 3,668 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,208 | 2,383 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 5,254 | 1,815 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 857 | 2,136 | +149% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 8,318 | 2,881 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,377 | 2,289 | +66% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 4,900 | 2,992 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 890 | 2,286 | +157% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 12,128 | 2,613 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,081 | 2,243 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | 8,064 | 2,410 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,223 | 2,148 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 4,982 | 3,224 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 944 | 2,327 | +147% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 12,825 | 6,209 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,847 | 2,741 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 7,614 | 4,141 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,348 | 2,483 | +84% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 11,097 | 2,690 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,678 | 2,203 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 11,485 | 2,112 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,351 | 2,178 | -7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 10,218 | 2,728 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,681 | 2,191 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 12,495 | 2,387 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,956 | 2,149 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 9,203 | 2,045 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,634 | 2,131 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 9,787 | 6,398 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,668 | 2,814 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 11,577 | 2,292 | -80% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,087 | 2,153 | +3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 10,189 | 2,682 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,107 | 2,287 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | 9,337 | 6,420 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,972 | 2,294 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 10,773 | 9,697 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,112 | 3,617 | +71% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | 11,475 | 8,707 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,033 | 3,306 | +63% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted, and 19 counted toward the lift figure. The other 4 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +26 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 19 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.