Catalog
obra/diagnosing-superpowers

obra

diagnosing-superpowers

Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.

NewUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Diagnosing Superpowers

Overview

Pin down with your human partner what went wrong in a session, read the transcripts on disk, and report what happened with evidence. You report; you do not diagnose superpowers. Whoever triages the bundle or the issue decides whether superpowers changes.

Core principle: Every finding cites path:line. No citation, no finding. Every number comes from the transcript or from a command you ran, never from memory.

Workflow

Create a todo per step. Steps 5–7 run only on their stated condition.

  1. Problem intake. Ask one question at a time until you can write a statement naming the session(s), the turn range if known, what your partner expected, what happened, and the observable they care about (wall-clock, tokens, repeated actions, one specific action). "It took too long" is a complaint, not a problem statement. Note whether the goal is a superpowers bug report.
  2. Locate. Resolve each session to verified absolute filesystem paths using references/session-discovery.md. Confirm a past session by quoting its first prompt and timestamp, and list every candidate you rejected with the reason, or "none". Enumerate subagent transcripts. Create ~/.superpowers/diagnosing-superpowers/<session-id>/, tell your partner the path, and fill templates/case.md there, following its provenance rules for environment and skill observations.
  3. Triage. Read the region around the reported problem yourself. Then dispatch one analyst subagent per dimension in parallel, each given the case file path, prompts/analyst-common.md, and one dimension file from prompts/: skill-timeline.md, plan-adherence.md, repeated-work.md, stumbles.md, quality-evidence.md, request-conflicts.md, cost-and-time.md. Split a dimension by turn range when the transcript is long. Discard any returned finding without path:line.
  4. Report. Fill every section of templates/report.md in order, write it to the workspace, show it, and give the path. Check what cited content actually proves and preserve the supporting case; a symlink alias is not a redundant copy.
  5. GitHub issues — when report §7 says possible or likely, or your partner asks. Search open and closed issues for the symptoms per references/github-issues.md. Show matches and suggest adding the report to the closest. If none match, fill templates/issue.md, write it to the workspace, show the exact text, and create the issue only after approval. gh cannot attach files; if a bundle exists, give your partner its path to attach in the browser.
  6. Export — only when your partner asks for a bundle; never build one unprompted. If the intake goal was a bug report, say once that a scrubbed bundle is available on request, then wait. Ask the redaction level, stating what each includes: skeleton (no tool-result bodies), evidence (bodies only for cited events), full. Build the bundle per templates/bundle-README.md, dispatch prompts/scrub.md, then prompts/scrub-audit.md, repeating both until the audit returns CLEAN. Complete the bundle template's evidence check and reconciliation before showing the final scrub log, file list, and privacy and evidence outcomes. Archive (zip -r or tar -czf) only after approval. With the archive path, state what it contains, point at the scrub log for replacements, and say scrubbing can miss things: they must review every file before sharing.
  7. Similar sessions — when asked. Turn confirmed findings into a signature, list candidates by mtime and size, find marker line numbers, dispatch prompts/similar-session.md per candidate in parallel, and append report §9.

Quick reference

All seven analysts always run. This table says which region to read yourself in step 3 and which findings to lead with in the verdict.

Complaint Read first, lead with
"It took too long" cost-and-time, stumbles
"Why did it do this extra work?" repeated-work, plan-adherence
"Why is it so expensive?" cost-and-time
"What the hell is it doing?" (still running) skill-timeline; note in-progress in coverage
"It ignored the plan" plan-adherence, compaction lines first
"Skill X never fired" skill-timeline

Hard rules

  • Context safety. One transcript line can be a megabyte. Follow references/context-safety.md on every session file, every time.
  • Read-only. Never modify, move, or delete a session file.
  • Exact paths to subagents. A subagent's "current session" is its own. Pass absolute paths and ids.
  • Human prompts only. Hook output, system reminders, and tool results are not your partner's words. In a subagent transcript, "user" is the parent agent.
  • No superpowers diagnosis. Report §7 states involvement and stops. Never name a defect in a skill or propose a change. Your partner pressing for a fix does not waive this; point at the issue step and mention that a bundle is available on request. No advice to your partner either.
  • Approval gates. No archive before your partner has seen the scrub log and file list. No issue or comment before they approve the exact text, and none with a placeholder summary.
  • Intake before analysis. Nothing in steps 2–7 starts until your partner has answered. If they are away, write the questions and stop. A statement you reconstructed for them is not an answer. An already-scoped request — one specific event, what is running now, or the analysis to run — is itself the statement: answer it, then ask. A whole-session "why" is a complaint.

Red Flags

Thought Reality
"The problem is obvious, skip intake" The problem statement scopes everything. Ask.
"They're away, so I'll reconstruct the statement" You cannot reconstruct what they wanted. Write the questions and stop.
"I'll sweep everything now and ask at the end" An unscoped sweep spends their budget on the wrong question. Ask first.
"They want a bug report, so I'll build the bundle now" The bundle is their session data, packaged. Build it only when they ask for it.
"Small, targeted edit, no restructuring needed" Not your call, however small. Report the evidence; the triager decides.
"The price per token is well known" Numbers you did not compute from the transcript are invented. Cite or drop.
Files20
20 files · 35.0 KB

Select a file to preview

Overall Score

88/100

Grade

A

Excellent

Grades are signals, not a certification. Always review a skill yourself before use.

Safety

92

Quality

87

Clarity

88

Completeness

83

Summary

The diagnosing-superpowers skill is a structured troubleshooting framework that guides an AI agent through methodically diagnosing why a superpowers coding-session went wrong. It provides a seven-step workflow—from intake and session localization through triage, reporting, optional GitHub issue filing, bundle export, and similar-session matching—along with detailed analyst prompts, case templates, and safety guardrails for reading potentially large session transcripts without context overflow.

Detected Capabilities

file readfile writeshell executiongit operationsenvironment inspectionGitHub API interactiondirectory creationtemplate rendering

Trigger Keywords

Phrases that agents use to match this skill to user intent.

diagnose session failuresuperpowers bug reportsession transcript analysistroubleshoot coding agentfind repeated workinvestigate plan drift

Risk Signals

INFO

Shell execution of external commands (gh, curl, wc, awk, sed, jq, grep, git)

prompts/github-issues.md, references/context-safety.md, templates/bundle-README.md
INFO

File I/O: reads session transcripts, writes case files, report templates, bundles to ~/.superpowers/diagnosing-superpowers/

SKILL.md §2, §4, §6; templates/case.md, templates/report.md
INFO

GitHub API access via gh CLI or curl to api.github.com for issue search and creation

prompts/github-issues.md, references/github-issues.md
INFO

Approval gates enforced before destructive actions (archive creation, issue filing)

SKILL.md §4, §6 'Approval gates' hard rule
INFO

Context-safety rules explicitly documented to avoid reading megabyte-line records or piping session content unsafely

references/context-safety.md, SKILL.md 'Context safety' hard rule
INFO

Read-only access to session files — never modifies, moves, or deletes

SKILL.md 'Read-only' hard rule, prompts/analyst-common.md

Referenced Domains

External domains referenced in skill content, detected by static analysis.

api.github.comgithub.com

Use Cases

  • Diagnose why a superpowers coding session failed or underperformed
  • Gather evidence for a superpowers bug report with path:line citations
  • Analyze repeated work, stumbles, plan drift, or cost anomalies in a session
  • Triage skill timeline gaps and missed trigger conditions
  • Export and redact session bundles for sharing with maintainers
  • Identify similar sessions across multiple runs to find patterns

Quality Notes

  • Exceptional: Seven-analyst-dimension architecture with parallel dispatch (skill-timeline, plan-adherence, repeated-work, stumbles, quality-evidence, request-conflicts, cost-and-time) ensures thorough, scoped investigation without guessing.
  • Excellent: Context-safety guardrails (measure-before-read, field extraction rather than cat/grep, 500-char narrowing) prevent context overflow on potentially megabyte-line records. Guidance is specific and actionable.
  • Excellent: Hard rules section (Context safety, Read-only, Exact paths, Human prompts only, No diagnosis, Approval gates, Intake before analysis) and Red Flags table preempt common mistakes and protect session integrity.
  • Strong: Every finding requires path:line citation — eliminates memory-based diagnosis and ensures reproducibility.
  • Strong: Case file template establishes provenance (historical evidence / unverified snapshot / current observation / unknown) for every environment field and skill observation, clarifying what was captured vs. current state.
  • Strong: Approval gates before archive, issue, or comment prevent premature sharing. Scrub + audit cycle ensures redaction quality before export.
  • Good: Subagent prompts (analyst-common, dimension-specific, matcher, scrubber, auditor) provide bounded instructions with consistent return format and field-extraction discipline.
  • Good: Session-discovery protocol emphasizes verification (don't infer, measure, establish record meanings) rather than assuming harness format.
  • Minor: No explicit guidance on handling ambiguous session matches (multiple candidates with similar metadata but different content) or how to escalate discovery failures.
  • Minor: Scrub-audit cycle repeats 'until CLEAN', but no guidance on failure modes if scrubbing cannot redact safely (e.g., proprietary term embedded in variable name). Assumes redaction is always possible.
  • Minor: Similar-session matching (§7) uses free-form marker signatures — no formal encoding of signature syntax or validation, relying on analyst judgment to define markers correctly.
Model: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001Analyzed: Oct 21, 2026

Reviews

Add this skill to your library to leave a review.

No reviews yet

Be the first to share your experience.

Version History

  1. v1.1

    Content updated

    ✦ AIAdds approval requirement for placeholder summaries in issues.

    2026-10-21

    LATEST
  2. v1.0

    2026-09-19

    View This VersionInitial version

Use obra/diagnosing-superpowers in your dev environment

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...