Works with the AI tools you already use
Agentic Run Failure Forensics
by monna
Trace multi-agent failures, separate roots from symptoms, and design the smallest evidence-producing rerun.
Secure checkout via Stripe
See it in action
You say
Objective: Add CSV export and prove it passes tests. Plan v2 requires an independent reviewer to inspect the diff and run pytest tests/test_export.py. Implementer: “CSV export is complete. I did not run tests.” Handoff: “All requirements satisfied.” Reviewer: “Approved based on the implementer report.” Ledger: tests=complete. No test result supplied; export.py is untracked. Why did this multi-agent run fail?
Your agent does
EVIDENCE COVERAGE — Plan and roles: PRESENT. Test execution: MISSING. Repository state: PRESENT and conflicts with completion. SUPPORTED FINDING F-01 — FM-3.2 No or Incomplete Verification. Evidence: implementer says tests were not run; reviewer approved from self-report; no test record exists. COMPLETION CONTRADICTION — ledger tests=complete is an assertion, not proof. ROOT/CASCADE CANDIDATE — missing executable gate → unsupported approval → false completion record. MINIMAL RERUN — freeze the diff, run the named test in a clean state, capture result and git status, and block completion when evidence is absent.
What you get
About this skill
Your agents finished. The evidence says the run did not.
Agentic Run Failure Forensics turns plans, agent traces, handoffs, tool effects, progress ledgers, review reports, tests, git state, and final artifacts into an evidence-bound failure report. It distinguishes observed facts from agent claims, maps supported behavior to the published MAST taxonomy, exposes stale ledgers and false-completion signals, and proposes the smallest rerun that can test a repair hypothesis.
What it produces
- Evidence coverage across objective, plan, roles, handoffs, tool effects, verification, repository state, and final result.
- Intended-versus-observed run reconstruction without filling missing steps.
- Supported MAST failure classifications with exact evidence pointers and alternatives.
- Root/cascade map separating entry conditions, contributors, propagation, symptoms, and impact.
- Ledger and completion contradictions, including reviewer passes that conflict with tests or artifacts.
- Repair layer selection, minimal rerun plan, and a regression fixture.
Why it is different
This is not a generic log summary or another debugging prompt. Dedicated reference protocols govern MAST classification, artifact normalization, evidence status, causal restraint, cascade mapping, repair selection, privacy, and injection isolation. Twelve forward cases cover complete and partial traces, single-agent exclusion, role conflict, handoff loss, premature termination, false reviewer passes, stale ledgers, embedded injection, multiple entry conditions, tool outages, and secret redaction.
Best for
- Teams using multi-agent coding or research workflows.
- Superpowers-style planning, implementation, review, and verification runs.
- Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and other agent-host users with inspectable artifacts.
- Engineers investigating loops, lost handoffs, stale state, or unsupported completion claims.
Boundaries
The skill does not debug single-agent prompts, repair code, execute agents, prove causality, certify security, or guarantee that a proposed repair will work. It does not treat MAST as exhaustive. Partial traces produce bounded findings and missing-evidence requests, not reconstructed history.
Independent product: Designed for Superpowers-style and other multi-agent workflows. Not affiliated with or endorsed by obra, Anthropic, OpenAI, Cursor, or any agent framework.
Changelog
- v1.1LatestAug 13, 2026
Updated skill file
- v1.0Aug 13, 2026
Initial release
How to install
Drop the file into your AI Agent. Works with Claude, Cursor, ChatGPT, and 20+ more.
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be one of the first to try it. Every listed skill passes our trust checks below.
Security scanned
Passed our 8-point scan before listing
Fresh listing
Recently published to Agensi
30-day refund
Not a fit? Get your money back
Trust & safety
Security scanned
Verified clean today
- 30-day refund guarantee
- One-time purchase, yours forever
- Secure checkout via Stripe
Creator
4 skills on Agensi
Frequently Asked Questions
Popular in AI Agents & LLM Ops
designing-hybrid-context-layers
Architects the right retrieval strategy for every query — teaching your agent when to use RAG, a knowledge graph, or a temporal index instead of defaulting to vector search for everything.
agentic-workflow
A risk-aware, evidence-based engineering lifecycle protocol for robust agentic task execution and safety.

prompt-engineer
Professional prompt engineering patterns for building robust, secure, and production-ready LLM applications.
deep-research-team
Deploy a hierarchical team of AI agents to perform 15-30 minute deep-dive research with parallel execution.