Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →testdouble/investigate
Evidence-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions.
Passed 4 of 11 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 11 without it.
and 4 more in the full report
6 fixed2 passed either way11 still failing3 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 6 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
When generating the final investigation report for a microservice memory leak bug, should we pre-populate empty template sections like Coding Standards Reference with 'N/A' or placeholder text if no relevant standards were found during discovery?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Omits any section from the plan file that lacks meaningful content instead of adding N/A or placeholder headings. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
find . -maxdepth 1 -name "CLAUDE.md" -type ffind . -maxdepth 3 -name "project-discovery.md" -type fbash "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/han-config-dir.sh" 2>/dev/null || echo "$HOME/.claude"cat .han/config.md 2>/dev/null || echo ""As your first action, use the Read tool on .han/config.md inside the personal config directory path above. A read
that returns no file is no personal configuration: continue silently. When that file or the project .han/config.md
probe supplies content, apply it per config-rule.md, which governs precedence
between the two files, relative-path resolution, and what to do with a file that reads but cannot be used.
han-core:evidence-based-investigator agents for different angles simultaneously — one for the error
path, one for the data flow, one for recent changes.han-core:adversarial-validator agent handles all three validation strategies (challenge evidence, challenge fix,
challenge assumptions) internally.han-communication:readability-guidance to source the shared readability standard into your context, then
apply it as you write the findings, holding the named audience: the engineer who will implement the fix and may be
paged on the bug. Scope that frame per section so the technical specifics the engineer needs (function names, exact
failing conditions, file:line citations) are preserved, never simplified away.test cases passed, vs 3 / 11 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.