Tested demoQuality 93/100

alirezarezvani/claude-skills/engineering/skills/focused-fix/SKILL.md

focused-fix

Use when the user asks to fix, debug, or make a specific feature/module/area work end-to-end. Triggers: 'make X work', 'fix the Y feature', 'the Z module is broken', 'focus on [area]'. Not for quick single-bug fixes — this is for systematic deep-dive repair across all files and dependencies.

Source repository stars
24,921
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
1
Last source update
2026-08-24
Source checked
2026-08-25

Decision brief

What it does: where it fits

Triggers: 'make X work', 'fix the Y feature', 'the Z module is broken', 'focus on [area]'. Not for quick single-bug fixes — this is for systematic deep-dive repair across all files and dependencies.

Best for

  • "make X work"
  • "fix the Y feature"
  • "the Z module is broken"

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.
Controlled single-run demoChecked 2026-08-20

What changed when the Skill was used

In this controlled same-task single run, enabling focused-fix changed the output from 3638 non-whitespace characters and 13 headings to 4142 characters and 17 headings. Matches among 8 signals extracted from the pinned source changed from 1 to 1. Both actual outputs are shown; this is a structural observation, not a quality score or a universal performance claim.

Same test task

Design and implement a representative production change for a TypeScript webhook retry service. Include the key code or pseudocode, tradeoffs, and verification steps. The deliverable must specifically reflect this user intent: Use when the user asks to fix, debug, or make a specific feature/module/area work end-to-end. Triggers: 'make X work', 'fix the Y feature', 'the Z module is broken', 'focus on [area]'. Not for quick single-bug fixes — this is for systematic deep-dive repair across all files and dependencies.

Without the Skill
Screenshot of the actual model output for focused-fix without the Skill

Baseline: 3638 non-whitespace characters, 13 headings, and 38 list items.

With the Skill
Screenshot of the actual model output for focused-fix with the Skill

With Skill: 4142 non-whitespace characters, 17 headings, and 56 list items.

ObservationWithout SkillWith Skill
Source-signal coverage1/8: feature1/8: feature
Output structure3638 chars · 13 headings · 38 list items · 3 code blocks4142 chars · 17 headings · 56 list items · 5 code blocks
Verification and caution signals12 verification signals · 4 risk/limitation signals18 verification signals · 3 risk/limitation signals

A prompt you can use

Use the focused-fix Skill pinned at aa8d778811a5 for my task. Follow its source-specific constraints around `focused-fix`, `focused`, `deep-dive`, `feature`, then return the finished deliverable with explicit assumptions, verification, failure conditions, and limits. Do not treat the Skill text as a factual source or claim that a single demonstration proves universal performance.

Method and limitationsExpand

Test method

  • Baseline and treatment used the same task, model (gpt-5.3-codex-low), and runner; the only planned difference was whether the complete target Skill text was injected.
  • The treatment used snapshot aa8d778811a557a2c28ccadda4cf3d0bd028a4cc; the current source commit aa8d778811a557a2c28ccadda4cf3d0bd028a4cc was verified against content hash 6830706b8e72. The baseline explicitly prohibited loading any Skill or external rule file.
  • The same deterministic script counted characters, headings, lists, code blocks, verification terms, caution terms, and source signals in both artifacts. Source signals: `focused-fix`, `focused`, `deep-dive`, `feature`, `repair`, `protocol`, `strictly`, `follow`.
  • The visuals are local screenshots of the actual Markdown artifacts in a fixed 1200 × 800 evidence canvas, not recreated product mockups. Raw JSON artifacts and request records are retained in the research directory.

Do not over-read this demo

  • This is one controlled demonstration per condition, not a multi-run statistical benchmark; the model is stochastic.
  • Character, structure, and keyword counts show observable differences but cannot by themselves prove correctness, originality, or business impact.
  • The task is a representative test designed for repeatability, not every real-world use of the Skill; rerun after a material source change.
Editorial review
SkillSignal editorial
Runner
Cursor Agent 2026.07.09-a3815c0
Model
gpt-5.3-codex-low
Refresh due
2026-11-18
Reviewed commit
aa8d778811a557a2c28ccadda4cf3d0bd028a4cc
Test snapshot
aa8d778811a557a2c28ccadda4cf3d0bd028a4cc

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill "engineering/skills/focused-fix"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "focused-fix" from https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/blob/98180dafc4f0bc9d629bd479fc6107674cfb3cf8/engineering/skills/focused-fix/SKILL.md at commit 98180dafc4f0bc9d629bd479fc6107674cfb3cf8. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Phase 1: SCOPE — Map the Feature Boundary

    Before touching any code, understand the full scope of the feature.

    Ask the user: "Which feature/folder should I focus on?" if not already clearIdentify the PRIMARY folder/files for this featureMap EVERY file in that folder — read each one, understand its purpose
  2. 02

    Phase 2: TRACE — Map All Dependencies (Inside AND Outside)

    Trace every connection this feature has to the rest of the codebase.

    For every import statement in every file in the feature folder:Trace it to its sourceVerify the source file exists
  3. 03

    Phase 3: DIAGNOSE — Find Every Issue

    Systematically check for problems. Run ALL of these checks:

    [ ] Every import resolves to a real file/export[ ] No circular dependencies within the feature[ ] Types are consistent across boundaries (no any at interfaces)
  4. 04

    Phase 4: FIX — Repair Everything Systematically

    Fix issues in this EXACT order:

    DEPENDENCIES FIRST — fix broken imports, missing packages, wrong versionsTYPES SECOND — fix type mismatches at feature boundariesLOGIC THIRD — fix actual business logic bugs
  5. 05

    Phase 5: VERIFY — Confirm Everything Works

    After all fixes are applied:

    Run ALL tests in the feature folder — every single one must passRun ALL tests in files that IMPORT from this feature — must passRun the full test suite if available — check for regressions

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

Reads files

low · line 310

The documentation asks the agent to read local files, directories, or repositories.

| SCOPE | Read every file, map entry points | Feature manifest |

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score93/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars24,921SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guidetested outcome pageTestedGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Skill path
engineering/skills/focused-fix/SKILL.md
Commit
98180dafc4f0bc9d629bd479fc6107674cfb3cf8
License
MIT
Collected
2026-08-25
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

Focused Fix — Deep-Dive Feature Repair

When to Use

Activate when the user asks to fix, debug, or make a specific feature/module/area work. Key triggers:

  • "make X work"
  • "fix the Y feature"
  • "the Z module is broken"
  • "focus on [area]"
  • "this feature needs to work properly"

This is NOT for quick single-bug fixes (use systematic-debugging for that). This is for when an entire feature or module needs systematic repair — tracing every dependency, reading logs, checking tests, mapping the full dependency graph.

digraph when_to_use {
    "User reports feature broken" [shape=diamond];
    "Single bug or symptom?" [shape=diamond];
    "Use systematic-debugging" [shape=box];
    "Entire feature/module needs repair?" [shape=diamond];
    "Use focused-fix" [shape=box];
    "Something else" [shape=box];

    "User reports feature broken" -> "Single bug or symptom?";
    "Single bug or symptom?" -> "Use systematic-debugging" [label="yes"];
    "Single bug or symptom?" -> "Entire feature/module needs repair?" [label="no"];
    "Entire feature/module needs repair?" -> "Use focused-fix" [label="yes"];
    "Entire feature/module needs repair?" -> "Something else" [label="no"];
}

The Iron Law

NO FIXES WITHOUT COMPLETING SCOPE → TRACE → DIAGNOSE FIRST

If you haven't finished Phase 3, you cannot propose fixes. Period.

Violating the letter of these phases is violating the spirit of focused repair.

Protocol — STRICTLY follow these 5 phases IN ORDER

digraph phases {
    rankdir=LR;
    SCOPE [shape=box, label="Phase 1\nSCOPE"];
    TRACE [shape=box, label="Phase 2\nTRACE"];
    DIAGNOSE [shape=box, label="Phase 3\nDIAGNOSE"];
    FIX [shape=box, label="Phase 4\nFIX"];
    VERIFY [shape=box, label="Phase 5\nVERIFY"];

    SCOPE -> TRACE -> DIAGNOSE -> FIX -> VERIFY;
    FIX -> DIAGNOSE [label="fix broke\nsomething else"];
    FIX -> ESCALATE [label="3+ fixes\ncreate new issues"];
    ESCALATE [shape=doubleoctagon, label="STOP\nQuestion Architecture\nDiscuss with User"];
}

Phase 1: SCOPE — Map the Feature Boundary

Before touching any code, understand the full scope of the feature.

  1. Ask the user: "Which feature/folder should I focus on?" if not already clear
  2. Identify the PRIMARY folder/files for this feature
  3. Map EVERY file in that folder — read each one, understand its purpose
  4. Create a feature manifest:
FEATURE SCOPE:
  Primary path: src/features/auth/
  Entry points: [files that are imported by other parts of the app]
  Internal files: [files only used within this feature]
  Total files: N
  Total lines: N

Phase 2: TRACE — Map All Dependencies (Inside AND Outside)

Trace every connection this feature has to the rest of the codebase.

INBOUND (what this feature imports):

  1. For every import statement in every file in the feature folder:
    • Trace it to its source
    • Verify the source file exists
    • Verify the imported entity (function, type, component) exists and is exported
    • Check if the types/signatures match what the feature expects
  2. Check for:
    • Environment variables used (grep for process.env, import.meta.env, os.environ, etc.)
    • Config files referenced
    • Database models/schemas used
    • API endpoints called
    • Third-party packages imported

OUTBOUND (what imports this feature):

  1. Search the entire codebase for imports from this feature folder
  2. For each consumer:
    • Verify they're importing entities that actually exist
    • Check if they're using the correct API/interface
    • Note if any consumers are using deprecated patterns

Output format:

DEPENDENCY MAP:
  Inbound (this feature depends on):
    src/lib/db.ts → used in auth/repository.ts (getUserById, createUser)
    src/lib/jwt.ts → used in auth/service.ts (signToken, verifyToken)
    @prisma/client → used in auth/repository.ts
    process.env.JWT_SECRET → used in auth/service.ts
    process.env.DATABASE_URL → used via prisma

  Outbound (depends on this feature):
    src/app/api/login/route.ts → imports { login } from auth/service
    src/app/api/register/route.ts → imports { register } from auth/service
    src/middleware.ts → imports { verifyToken } from auth/service

  Env vars required: JWT_SECRET, DATABASE_URL
  Config files: prisma/schema.prisma (User model)

Phase 3: DIAGNOSE — Find Every Issue

Systematically check for problems. Run ALL of these checks:

CODE QUALITY:

  • Every import resolves to a real file/export
  • No circular dependencies within the feature
  • Types are consistent across boundaries (no any at interfaces)
  • Error handling exists for all async operations
  • No TODO/FIXME/HACK comments indicating known issues

RUNTIME:

  • All required environment variables are set (check .env)
  • Database migrations are up to date (if applicable)
  • API endpoints return expected shapes
  • No hardcoded values that should be configurable

TESTS:

  • Run ALL tests related to this feature: find them by searching for imports from the feature folder
  • Record every failure with full error output
  • Check test coverage — are there untested code paths?

LOGS & ERRORS:

  • Search for any log files, error reports, or Sentry-style error tracking
  • Check git log for recent changes to this feature: git log --oneline -20 -- <feature-path>
  • Check if any recent commits might have broken something: git log --oneline -5 --all -- <files that this feature depends on>

CONFIGURATION:

  • Verify all config files this feature depends on are valid
  • Check for mismatches between development and production configs
  • Verify third-party service credentials are valid (if testable)

ROOT-CAUSE CONFIRMATION: For each CRITICAL issue found, confirm root cause before adding it to the fix list:

  • State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
  • Trace the data/control flow backward to verify — don't trust surface-level symptoms
  • If the issue spans multiple components, add diagnostic logging at each boundary to identify which layer fails
  • REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: For complex bugs found during diagnosis, apply superpowers:systematic-debugging Phase 1 (Root Cause Investigation) to confirm before proceeding

RISK LABELING: Assign each issue a risk label:

RiskCriteria
HIGHPublic API surface / breaking interface contract / DB schema / auth or security logic / widely imported module (>3 callers) / git hotspot
MEDInternal module with tests / shared utility / config with runtime impact / internal callers of changed functions
LOWLeaf module / isolated file / test-only change / single-purpose helper with no callers

Output format:

DIAGNOSIS REPORT:
  Issues found: N

  CRITICAL:
    1. [HIGH] [file:line] — description of issue. Root cause: [confirmed explanation]
    2. [HIGH] [file:line] — description of issue. Root cause: [confirmed explanation]

  WARNINGS:
    1. [MED] [file:line] — description of issue
    2. [LOW] [file:line] — description of issue

  TESTS:
    Ran: N tests
    Passed: N
    Failed: N
    [list each failure with one-line summary]

Phase 4: FIX — Repair Everything Systematically

Fix issues in this EXACT order:

  1. DEPENDENCIES FIRST — fix broken imports, missing packages, wrong versions
  2. TYPES SECOND — fix type mismatches at feature boundaries
  3. LOGIC THIRD — fix actual business logic bugs
  4. TESTS FOURTH — fix or create tests for each fix
  5. INTEGRATION LAST — verify the feature works end-to-end with its consumers

Rules:

  • Fix ONE issue at a time
  • After each fix, run the related test to confirm it works
  • If a fix breaks something else, STOP and re-evaluate (go back to DIAGNOSE)
  • Keep a running log of every change made
  • Never change code outside the feature folder without explicitly stating why
  • Fix HIGH-risk issues before MED, MED before LOW

ESCALATION RULE — 3-Strike Architecture Check: If 3+ fixes in this phase create NEW issues (not pre-existing ones), STOP immediately.

This pattern indicates an architectural problem, not a bug collection:

  • Each fix reveals new shared state / coupling / problem in a different place
  • Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
  • Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere

Action: Stop fixing. Tell the user: "3+ fixes have cascaded into new issues. This suggests the feature's architecture may need rethinking, not patching. Here's what I've found: [summary]. Should we continue fixing symptoms or discuss restructuring?"

Do NOT attempt fix #4 without this discussion.

Output after each fix:

FIX #1:
  File: auth/service.ts:45
  Issue: signToken called with wrong argument order
  Change: swapped (expiresIn, payload) to (payload, expiresIn)
  Test: auth.test.ts → PASSES

Phase 5: VERIFY — Confirm Everything Works

After all fixes are applied:

  1. Run ALL tests in the feature folder — every single one must pass
  2. Run ALL tests in files that IMPORT from this feature — must pass
  3. Run the full test suite if available — check for regressions
  4. If the feature has a UI, describe how to manually verify it
  5. Summarize all changes made

Final output:

FOCUSED FIX COMPLETE:
  Feature: auth
  Files changed: 4
  Total fixes: 7
  Tests: 23/23 passing
  Regressions: 0

  Changes:
    1. auth/service.ts — fixed token signing argument order
    2. auth/repository.ts — added null check for user lookup
    3. auth/middleware.ts — fixed async error handling
    4. auth/types.ts — aligned UserResponse type with actual DB schema

  Consumers verified:
    - src/app/api/login/route.ts ✅
    - src/app/api/register/route.ts ✅
    - src/middleware.ts ✅

Red Flags — STOP and Return to Current Phase

If you catch yourself thinking any of these, you are skipping phases:

  • "I can see the bug, let me just fix it" → STOP. You haven't traced dependencies yet.
  • "Scoping is overkill, it's obviously just this file" → STOP. That's always wrong for feature-level fixes.
  • "I'll map dependencies after I fix the obvious stuff" → STOP. You'll miss root causes.
  • "The user said fix X, so I only need to look at X" → STOP. Features have dependencies.
  • "Tests are passing so I'm done" → STOP. Did you run consumer tests too?
  • "I don't need to check env vars for this" → STOP. Config issues masquerade as code bugs.
  • "One more fix should do it" (after 2+ cascading failures) → STOP. Escalate.
  • "I'll skip the diagnosis report, the fixes are obvious" → STOP. Write it down.

ALL of these mean: Return to the phase you're supposed to be in.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"The feature is small, I don't need all 5 phases"Small features have dependencies too. Phases 1-2 take minutes for small features — do them.
"I already know this codebase"Knowledge decays. Trace the actual imports, don't rely on memory.
"The user wants speed, not process"Skipping phases causes rework. Systematic is faster than thrashing.
"Only one file is broken"If only one file were broken, the user would say "fix this bug", not "make the feature work."
"I fixed the tests, so it works"Tests can pass while consumers are broken. Verify Phase 5 fully.
"The dependency map is too big to trace"Then the feature is too big to fix without tracing. That's exactly why you need it.
"Root cause is obvious, I don't need to confirm""Obvious" root causes are wrong 40% of the time. Confirm with evidence.
"3 cascading failures is normal for a big fix"3 cascading failures means you're patching symptoms of an architectural problem.

Anti-Patterns — NEVER do these

Anti-PatternWhy It's Wrong
Starting to fix code before mapping all dependenciesYou'll miss root causes and create whack-a-mole fixes
Fixing only the file the user mentionedRelated files likely have issues too
Ignoring environment variables and configurationMany "code bugs" are actually config issues
Skipping the test run phaseYou can't verify fixes without running tests
Making changes outside the feature folder without explaining whyUnexpected side effects confuse the user
Fixing symptoms in consumer files instead of root cause in featureBand-aids that break when the next consumer appears
Declaring "done" without running verification testsUntested fixes are unverified fixes
Changing the public API without updating all consumersBreaks everything that depends on the feature

Related Skills

  • superpowers:systematic-debugging — Use within Phase 3 for root-cause tracing of individual complex bugs
  • superpowers:verification-before-completion — Use within Phase 5 before claiming the feature is fixed
  • scope — If you need to understand blast radius before starting, run scope first then focused-fix

Quick Reference

PhaseKey ActionOutput
SCOPERead every file, map entry pointsFeature manifest
TRACEMap inbound + outbound dependenciesDependency map
DIAGNOSECheck code, runtime, tests, logs, configDiagnosis report
FIXFix in order: deps → types → logic → tests → integrationFix log per issue
VERIFYRun all tests, check consumers, summarizeCompletion report

Frequently asked questions

What to verify before installation and use

What does the focused-fix source document cover?

Triggers: 'make X work', 'fix the Y feature', 'the Z module is broken', 'focus on [area]'. Not for quick single-bug fixes — this is for systematic deep-dive repair across all files and dependencies.

How do I install focused-fix?

The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill "engineering/skills/focused-fix". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Which permission-related actions were detected?

Static rules flagged read-files in the source; the page lists the matching lines and excerpts.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 10045,511

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

ab-testing

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program

Computed 10029,034

garrytan/gbrain

bulk-ingestion

End-to-end discipline for turning any large data source (audio libraries, email takeouts, document corpora, chat exports, API dumps) into brain pages at scale. The lifecycle spine: SCHEMA → ACCESS → TRIAL → EVALUATE → IMPROVE → CODIFY → TEST → SKILLIFY → BULK → MONITOR. State is tracked in a durable JSON manifest (see MANIFEST-PATTERN.md) so any crash, session boundary, or subagent fan-out resumes from ground truth instead of memory.

Computed 10024,921

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

app-store-optimization

App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching keywords, analyzing competitor rankings, generating metadata suggestions, and improving app visibility on Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Use when the user asks about ASO, app store rankings, app metadata, app titles and descriptions, app store listings, app visibility, or mobile app marketing on iOS or Android. Supports keyword research and scoring, competitor keyword analysis, metadata optimization, A/B test planning, launch checklist

Computed 1005,241

dotnet/skills

migrate-vstest-to-mtp

Migrates .NET test projects from VSTest to Microsoft.Testing.Platform (MTP). Use when user asks to "migrate to MTP", "switch from VSTest", "enable Microsoft.Testing.Platform", "use MTP runner", set OutputType=Exe only for test projects in Directory.Build.props, or mentions EnableMSTestRunner, EnableNUnitRunner, or UseMicrosoftTestingPlatformRunner. USE FOR: MTP behavioral differences vs VSTest (exit code 8, zero tests discovered, --ignore-exit-code, TESTINGPLATFORM_EXITCODE_IGNORE); centralizing