SkillAtlasSkill 详情

explanation-traces

Essays and writing behind this toolkit live at vexjoy.com.

审核状态:已审核Quality 72Security 70

复制安装命令

用 Codex 或 Claude 安装复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它先审查 Skill 页面再帮你安装。

复制前请先查看来源、License 和安全提示。

项目 README

来源文件:README.md

抓取于 2026年8月31日

VexJoy Agent

VexJoy Agent

Essays and writing behind this toolkit live at vexjoy.com.

AI agents skip steps.

"Looks correct" replaces running tests. "Trivial change" replaces verification. The agent confidently ships broken code because nothing structurally prevented it from skipping the work.

Harnesses have a second problem: given only a skill list, they do not route eagerly enough, or correctly enough. Good skills sit unused. So this toolkit connects the skills, agents, and workflows we want directly into the harness, automatically. You don't have to understand what is here. Say what you want in plain English and you get all the value we have put into it: the right specialist with the right methodology, behind gates that demand exit codes, not assertions.

44 domain agents, 122 workflow skills, 78 hooks, 136 scripts. Agents carry knowledge, skills enforce methodology, hooks block incomplete work, scripts handle determinism.

Works across Claude Code (/do), Codex ($do), Factory (/do), Reasonix (/do).

What It Looks Like

$ claude

> /do debug this Go test

  Routing: go-engineer + systematic-debugging
  Phase 1/4: Reproduce: running test, capturing failure...
  Phase 2/4: Hypothesize: 3 candidates from stack trace...
  Phase 3/4: Verify: isolated root cause in connection pool timeout
  Phase 4/4: Fix: patch applied, test passing, PR opened

  ✓ Delivered: PR #847, fix connection pool timeout in health check

The router reads intent, picks a Go agent paired with a debugging skill, and runs the full lifecycle. You typed one sentence. The system did the rest.

The Pipeline

  ROUTE        PLAN         EXECUTE      VERIFY       DELIVER      RECORD
 ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐
 │ /do  │───▶│ Task │───▶│Agent │───▶│Tests │───▶│  PR  │───▶│Route │
 │Router│    │ Plan │    │+Skill│    │Gates │    │Branch│    │Result│
 └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘

Anti-Rationalization

This is the single thing that separates it from "agent with a system prompt."

Agent SaysWhat Happens
"Code looks correct, skip tests"Exit gate requires test output. Blocked.
"Trivial change, no verification"Hook blocks completion without evidence.
"Similar to before"Skill demands case-specific proof.
"User is in a hurry"Protocol overrides time pressure.
"I'm confident"Gate demands exit code, not assertion.

Hooks fire automatically. Gates block completion. Skills encode counter-arguments at every skip-worthy step. The agent verifies or it doesn't finish.

For what I do, the difference is enormous. If you're doing simple single-file edits, maybe less so.

Knowledge Work Is First-Class

The same routing serves knowledge work. The content engine researches, drafts in a calibrated voice, validates against 397 AI patterns, and repurposes finished pieces for each platform. /html turns any request into a single self-contained HTML file: report, slide deck, prototype, data viz, diagram. Non-engineers who try the toolkit consistently name the HTML artifacts as the thing they love. No code, no setup beyond the installer.

It Proves Its Own Changes

Changes to the toolkit itself ship with evidence. New skills get blind A/B tests against a no-skill baseline before merge. Routing and writing-standard decisions carry measured verdicts; PHILOSOPHY.md cites the numbers. Experiments that lost go into the negative-results registry, what-didnt-work.md; the registry now covers routing reversals, unvalidated A/B citations, and disabled lint rules alongside the original program refutations.

The automated nightly evolution loop (/evolve, writes to evolution-reports/) ran regularly through mid-May 2026. It is currently dormant; recent evidence has come from manual PRs instead.

Installation

git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git ~/vexjoy-agent
cd ~/vexjoy-agent
./install.sh

Links into ~/.claude/ and mirrors into ~/.codex/, ~/.factory/, ~/.reasonix/ — each mirror only when that runtime is detected (its command on PATH or its home dir already exists). The installer asks symlink (live updates via git pull) or copy (stable snapshot).

Want only part of the toolkit? Run ./install.sh --configure to pick which skills, agents, and hooks install, or copy .local.example/profile.yaml to .local/profile.yaml and edit. No profile file = full install, unchanged behavior. Credit: @thomasvan. Details: .local.example/README.md.

CLIEntry Point
Claude Code/do
Codex$do
Factory/do
Reasonix/do

Full setup: docs/start-here.md

Codex CLI Parity

Mirrors agents, skills, and supported hooks into ~/.codex/. The original six-hook allowlist was correct for Codex v0.114, when tool hooks only intercepted Bash. Current support requires Codex v0.144.1+ and classifies the 74 Claude hook registrations as 26 native, 35 adapter-backed, and 13 unsupported (61 supported). These are registration counts, not unique hook files. The installer also preserves explicit per-subagent model routing for GPT-5.6 Sol by setting the MultiAgent V2 compatibility keys documented in openai/codex#31814.

Codex now exposes apply_patch to tool hooks. VexJoy's adapter converts each patch operation into the Write/Edit payload expected by existing guards, but it cannot intercept writes performed through unified_exec, unmatched MCP tools, WebSearch, or other unsupported tool paths. PreCompact and Stop adapters also receive less telemetry than Claude Code: Codex does not provide Claude's conversation_history or session_data. This is expanded compatibility, not full Claude parity.

After install or any hook-definition change, run /hooks in Codex and review the new definitions before trusting them. Codex hash-trusts hook commands and skips changed, unreviewed definitions.

Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI Support (removed)

Gemini CLI support removed (deprecated upstream, transitioned to Antigravity CLI); Antigravity support pending CLI maturity. Per Google's transition announcement, Gemini CLI stops serving requests on 2026-06-18 for Google AI Pro / Ultra and free Gemini Code Assist for individuals. Gemini API integrations (image-gen backends, sprite pipeline, GEMINI_API_KEY) are unaffected and stay in the toolkit.

If a prior install mirrored into ~/.gemini/, remove the stale mirrors with:

rm -rf ~/.gemini/skills ~/.gemini/agents ~/.gemini/hooks ~/.gemini/scripts ~/.gemini/antigravity/plugins/vexjoy-agent
Factory CLI Support

Mirrors agents (as "droids"), skills, and all hooks into ~/.factory/. Hook config merges into ~/.factory/settings.json with paths rewritten.

Reasonix Support

Mirrors skills, scripts, and the allowlisted hooks (scripts/reasonix-hooks-allowlist.txt) into ~/.reasonix/ (no agent or custom-command surface, so neither is installed; the /do router rides in as a skill). Reasonix fires only 4 events (PreToolUse, PostToolUse, UserPromptSubmit, Stop), so only hooks for those events are allowlisted. Hook config is written to the hooks key of ~/.reasonix/settings.json in Reasonix's native flat shape (one entry per hook, match regex over the tool name); the generator builds absolute python3 commands, so no path rewrite is applied. MCP/model/permissions in ~/.reasonix/config.json are user-owned and left untouched.

Token-saving mode

The toolkit supplies its own routing, domain knowledge, methodology, and enforcement. The default system prompt duplicates most of that.

claude --system-prompt "."

Strips built-in tool-use instructions. The toolkit's agents, skills, hooks, and CLAUDE.md provide equivalent coverage.

Four Layers

LayerCountDoes
Agents44Domain knowledge: idiom tables, failure mode catalogs, error-to-fix mappings
Skills122Phased methodology with gates. Can't skip steps. Each phase has exit criteria requiring evidence.
Hooks78Fire on lifecycle events. Block incomplete work. Zero LLM cost.
Scripts136Determinism: test runners, linters, validators. No LLM judgment.

Full skill catalog: docs/skills.md.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  SKILL.md                                       │
│  ┌─ Frontmatter ─────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ triggers, pairs_with, success-criteria     │  │
│  └────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│  Reference Loading Table (conditional imports)   │
│  Phased Instructions (numbered, with gates)      │
│  Verification (evidence requirements)            │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Built with the Toolkit

A game built entirely by Claude Code using these agents, skills, and pipelines:

Choose Your Path

I just want to use it Install, learn /do, done.

I do knowledge work Writing, research, data analysis, moderation, HTML artifacts. No code.

I'm a developer Architecture, extension points, adding agents and skills.

I'm an AI power user Routing tables, pipelines, hooks, telemetry DB.

I'm an AI agent Machine-dense inventory. Tables, paths, schemas.

I'm on LinkedIn 🚀 Thought leadership. Agree? 👇

Philosophy

  • Zero-expertise operation. Say what you want. The system classifies, dispatches, enforces, delivers.
  • LLMs orchestrate, programs execute. Deterministic work belongs to scripts. LLM judgment handles design decisions, diagnosis, review.
  • Density. Every word carries instruction, rule, or decision. Cut everything else.
  • Breadth over depth. Right context ensures correctness. Unfocused context adds cost.
  • Structural enforcement. Exit codes enforce what instructions can't. Quality gates are automated, not advisory.
  • Everything pipelines. Complex work decomposes into phases. Phases have gates. Gates prevent cascading failures.

Full design philosophy: PHILOSOPHY.md

Maintenance

One report-only script surfaces upkeep work; it prints a digest and never edits, deletes, or blocks.

  • python3 scripts/stale-skill-scan.py --top 20 ranks stale skills and agents as pruning candidates. Run it quarterly; see docs/deprecation-template.md.

Scheduled work follows the same boundary as everything else: judgment uses agents; repeatable plumbing uses scripts.

NeedUse
Run a deterministic command on a schedulescripts/agent-scheduler.py with runner: "command"
Run an agent judgment on a schedule, webhook, or file changescripts/agent-scheduler.py with the default runner: "claude"
Install or remove a user crontab entry safelyscripts/crontab-manager.py
Audit shell cron reliabilitycron-automation
Keep one interactive objective moving until criteria verifyobjective-loop

Contributing

See CONTRIBUTING.md.

License

MIT. See LICENSE.

Agent / MCP / Skill 创作

中风险

  • 来源需自行核对维护者身份。
  • 包含脚本或命令调用,安装前请复核。
  • 可能需要外部 token、网络权限或第三方服务。
  • 未检测到高风险命令。
  • 扫描发现:2 条。

Codex — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/meta/explanation-traces" 文件夹复制到 Codex 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Codex — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Codex 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/meta/explanation-traces" 文件夹复制到 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/meta/explanation-traces" 文件夹复制到 Cursor 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Cursor 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/meta/explanation-traces" 文件夹复制到 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/meta/explanation-traces" 文件夹复制到 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。
查看 SKILL.md 原文
name: explanation-traces
description: "Query and display structured decision traces from routing, agent selection, and skill execution."
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: "<optional: specific decision to explain>"
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Bash
  - Glob
  - Grep
routing:
  triggers:
    - "why did you"
    - "explain routing"
    - "show trace"
    - "decision log"
    - "why that agent"
    - "explain decision"
    - "show decisions"
    - "trace log"
  force_route: true
  not_for: "general 'why did the test fail' debugging, explaining concepts to a user, code documentation, stack traces — only for querying recorded routing/agent decisions"
  pairs_with: []
  complexity: Simple
  category: analysis

Explanation Traces: Structured Decision Query

Overview

This skill reads the per-dispatch route event log and presents routing decisions and their outcomes as a human-readable timeline. It answers "why did I get routed here?" from what was recorded at decision time — never from post-hoc reconstruction or rationalization.

The log: <CLAUDE_LEARNING_DIR>/route-events.jsonl, default ~/.claude/learning/route-events.jsonl. Append-only JSONL — one JSON object per line. Written via hooks/lib/route_events.py by two producers:

ProducerFires onAppends
hooks/routing-decision-recorder.pyPostToolUse (Agent dispatch)One DECISION event per /do-routed dispatch
hooks/routing-outcome-finalizer.pyUserPromptSubmitOne OUTCOME event when it finalizes a pending dispatch

The log is auxiliary instrumentation: writes are failure-safe (worst case one lost line), and the aggregate routing rows in learning.db stay authoritative for the confidence loop.

Key constraints baked into the workflow:

  • Read-only: this skill never modifies the log or any other file
  • Answers must come from recorded events, not from memory or inference about what "probably happened"
  • If no log exists, name the real path and the real producing hook rather than guessing at decisions
  • When the user asks about a specific decision, filter to that decision — skip the full dump
  • ts (epoch seconds) and recorded fields are authoritative; keep their precision
  • request_snippet is private session data: show it to this session's own user, and keep it out of anything that leaves the session (PR bodies, issues, exports) — report counts there instead

Instructions

Phase 1: LOCATE

Goal: Find the route event log.

Step 1: Resolve the path and check it

LOG="${CLAUDE_LEARNING_DIR:-$HOME/.claude/learning}/route-events.jsonl"
wc -l "$LOG"

CLAUDE_LEARNING_DIR redirects the log (tests and redirected DBs use it); unset means the default ~/.claude/learning/.

Step 2: Handle missing log

If the file is absent or empty, stop and inform the user:

No route event log found at ~/.claude/learning/route-events.jsonl
(or $CLAUDE_LEARNING_DIR/route-events.jsonl when that variable is set).

The log is created on the first /do-routed dispatch by the
routing-decision-recorder hook (hooks/routing-decision-recorder.py).
An empty or missing log means no /do-routed dispatch has been recorded
yet — or merged hook changes were never synced to ~/.claude; run
hooks/sync-to-user-claude.py or restart the session.

Recorded events are the only source this skill reads. Reconstructing decisions from memory or conversation history defeats its purpose — with no log, there is nothing to read, and the honest answer is exactly that.

GATE: Log found and non-empty. Proceed only when gate passes.

Phase 2: PARSE

Goal: Extract events and filter to the user's query.

Step 1: Read the events

Parse each line as one JSON object. Two event types (full semantics: references/trace-schema.md; source of truth: hooks/lib/route_events.py).

DECISION — one per /do-routed dispatch:

FieldMeaning
tsEpoch seconds (float) when the dispatch was recorded
sessionSession id ("" when unknown)
request_snippetFirst 200 chars of the routed request
agent, skill, complexityThe chosen route
health_at_decisionPicked pair's confidence at decision time; null = no weight row or never evaluated (disambiguate with gate_inputs_present)
n, failureThe other demote-floor inputs, snapshotted with health
actionStep-1.5 health-gate outcome: keep, demote, or tiebreak
alternatesKeys offered as alternatives; null when none recorded
gate_inputs_presenttrue = the marker carried a health= token; false/absent = legacy marker, health never read

OUTCOME — one per finalized dispatch:

FieldMeaning
tsEpoch seconds when the outcome was finalized
sessionSession id
keyRouting key {agent}:{skill} (agent-only {agent}: when skill unknown)
outcomesuccess, failure, or neutral
reasonShort cause (e.g. tool-errors, rejection, acceptance, neutral-new-topic); absent in older events
routing_relevanttrue = a signal the confidence loop acts on; absent = relevance not asserted

Additive-field history: older lines may lack n, failure, action, alternates, gate_inputs_present, reason, routing_relevant. An absent field means "not recorded then", never corruption.

Step 2: Filter to the user's query

User signalFilter strategy
Names an agent or skillDECISION events where agent or skill matches, or the name appears in alternates; OUTCOME events whose key contains it
"Why did I get routed here" / latest dispatchMost recent DECISION events (tail of the log), current session first
Asks about outcome ("did it work", "why failure")OUTCOME events, joined back to their decisions
Names a sessionFilter both types on session
No specific targetChronological timeline of the most recent session

Step 3: Join outcomes to decisions

Match an OUTCOME to its DECISION on the same session AND key == "{agent}:{skill}". A decision with no matched outcome is pending (the finalizer runs on a later user prompt) or was never finalized — report that state as-is.

GATE: At least one decision event parsed and filtered. Proceed only when gate passes.

Phase 3: PRESENT

Goal: Format events as a human-readable decision timeline.

Step 1: Build the timeline

Sort by ts (numeric — concurrent appends can interleave lines out of order). Convert ts to local ISO time for display; show raw ts on request. For each decision:

[TIME] {agent} + {skill} ({complexity})
  Request: "{request_snippet}"
  Health at decision: {health line — see below}
  Alternates: {alternates, or "none recorded"}
  Outcome: {outcome} ({reason})   — or "pending: not yet finalized"

Health line — three recorded states, rendered distinctly:

RecordedRender as
Numeric health_at_decision0.62 (n=7, failure=1) → action=keep
null + gate_inputs_present: trueno weight row at decision time (new pair)
null + gate_inputs_present false/absenthealth gate not instrumented for this dispatch (legacy marker)

Group entries by session when the timeline spans more than one, to prevent wall-of-text.

Step 2: Lead with the answer to the user's question

If the user asked "why did I get routed here?", lead with the matching decision, then offer surrounding context:

You asked: "Why did I get the governance agent?"

Decision at [TIME]:
  Route: toolkit-governance-engineer + pr-workflow (Complex)
  Request: "ship the explanation-traces repoint as a green-CI PR..."
  Health at decision: no weight row at decision time (new pair)
  Alternates: none recorded
  Outcome: pending — not yet finalized

--- Session timeline (3 dispatches) ---
[... remaining entries ...]

Step 3: Flag gaps honestly

When entries lack additive fields or matched outcomes, say so explicitly:

Note: [N] decision(s) predate the health-gate instrumentation — they show
WHAT was routed but carry no health data. [M] decision(s) have no matched
outcome: pending or never finalized.

Incomplete data presented honestly beats complete-looking data that includes fabrication. Leave gaps as gaps.

GATE: Timeline presented. User's question answered from recorded events. Done.


Examples

Example 1: General session review

User says: "Show me the decision log"

skill: explanation-traces

Actions:

  1. Locate route-events.jsonl (Phase 1)
  2. Parse decisions and outcomes for the most recent session (Phase 2)
  3. Present chronological timeline with joined outcomes (Phase 3) Result: Session dispatch history — route, health at decision, outcome — per entry

Example 2: Specific routing question

User says: "Why did I get routed to that agent?"

skill: explanation-traces "why that agent?"

Actions:

  1. Locate route-events.jsonl (Phase 1)
  2. Tail the decision events; filter to the latest dispatch in this session (Phase 2)
  3. Lead with that decision — route, request snippet, health gate inputs, alternates — then the session timeline (Phase 3) Result: Evidence-backed routing explanation from the recorded event, never post-hoc rationalization

Example 3: Outcome investigation

User says: "Why was that dispatch marked a failure?"

skill: explanation-traces "failure outcome"

Actions:

  1. Locate route-events.jsonl (Phase 1)
  2. Filter to outcome: failure events; join each to its decision by session + key (Phase 2)
  3. Present the outcome's reason (e.g. tool-errors, rejection) with the originating decision (Phase 3) Result: The recorded failure cause, with the route and request that produced it

Patterns to Detect and Fix

Pattern 1: Evidence-Backed Trace Reading

Wrong: Reconstructing "why" from memory when the log is missing. Right: If no log exists, say so, name the real path and producing hook, and stop. Never fabricate an explanation.

Pattern 2: Distinguish the Three Health States

Wrong: Rendering every null health as "no data". Right: null + gate_inputs_present: true = pick had no weight row (new pair). null + false/absent = legacy marker, health never read. Different facts; render them differently.

Pattern 3: Join by Session and Key

Wrong: Pairing an outcome with "the decision right above it" in the file. Right: Match on session + key == "{agent}:{skill}". Interleaved sessions make file adjacency meaningless.

Pattern 4: Absent Field Is Not Corruption

Wrong: Flagging pre-instrumentation lines as malformed because gate_inputs_present is missing. Right: Fields were added over time; treat absence as "not recorded then" and say so.

Pattern 5: Answer the Specific Question First

Wrong: Always dumping the full timeline regardless of what the user asked. Right: Lead with the specific answer, then offer full context as supplementary detail.


Error Handling

Error: No Log File Found

Cause: No /do-routed dispatch recorded yet, hooks never synced to ~/.claude, or CLAUDE_LEARNING_DIR points elsewhere. Solution: Report the resolved path and the producing hook (hooks/routing-decision-recorder.py). Suggest hooks/sync-to-user-claude.py when hook changes were merged mid-session. Skip any reconstruction from conversation history.

Error: Malformed JSONL Line

Cause: Truncated append (rare — per-line appends are atomic) or manual edit. Solution: Skip the bad line, keep parsing the rest, and report the count and line numbers of skipped lines. JSONL fails per line, never whole-file.

Error: Log Has No Decision Events

Cause: File exists but every line is an OUTCOME, or the recorder's marker parsing is failing. Solution: Report counts by type. Point to references/error-handling.md for the recorder diagnosis steps.

Error: User Asks About a Dispatch Not in the Log

Cause: The recorder only records /do-routed top-level dispatches — nested fan-out and manual Agent calls are deliberately excluded. Solution: Show what IS recorded and explain the exclusion. Full mapping: references/error-handling.md.


References

Reference Loading Table

Task typeSignalsReference file
Reading or explaining event fields"health_at_decision", "gate_inputs_present", "alternates", "key", "schema"references/trace-schema.md
Diagnosing wrong or thin trace data"health null", "no alternates", "legacy marker", "not instrumented"references/preferred-patterns.md
Handling parse or read errors"malformed", "missing field", "no decisions", "not found", "pending"references/error-handling.md
Presenting filtered timeline"why did you", "show trace", "decision log", "explain routing"references/trace-schema.md

Reference Files

  • references/trace-schema.md: Real event schema for route-events.jsonl — DECISION and OUTCOME fields, health states, join rules, examples
  • references/preferred-patterns.md: Failure mode catalog for reading the log — join mistakes, health-state conflation, privacy — with detection commands
  • references/error-handling.md: Error-fix mappings — missing log, malformed lines, no decisions, unmatched outcomes, unrecorded dispatches

发现问题?提交给管理员复核

评分:

评论 (0)

暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!