dotnet__skills/.github/workflows/issue-investigate.md

---
name: "Issue Investigate"
description: >
  Deep investigation agent triggered when the 'auto-investigate' label is
  added to an issue. Performs thorough analysis of the issue against the
  codebase and related issues, suggests optimal next steps, and creates
  a draft PR with the fix if the solution is clear.

on:
  issues:
    types: [labeled]

  # ###############################################################
  # Override the COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN secret usage for the workflow
  # with a randomly-selected token from a pool of secrets.
  #
  # As soon as organization-level billing is offered for Agentic
  # Workflows, this stop-gap approach will be removed.
  #
  # See: /.github/actions/select-copilot-pat/README.md
  # ###############################################################
  steps:
    - uses: actions/checkout@de0fac2e4500dabe0009e67214ff5f5447ce83dd # v6.0.2
      name: Checkout the select-copilot-pat action folder
      with:
        persist-credentials: false
        sparse-checkout: .github/actions/select-copilot-pat
        sparse-checkout-cone-mode: true
        fetch-depth: 1

    - id: select-copilot-pat
      name: Select Copilot token from pool
      uses: ./.github/actions/select-copilot-pat
      env:
        SECRET_0: ${{ secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN }}
        SECRET_1: ${{ secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_2 }}
        SECRET_2: ${{ secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_3 }}
        SECRET_3: ${{ secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_4 }}
        SECRET_4: ${{ secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_5 }}
        SECRET_5: ${{ secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_6 }}
        SECRET_6: ${{ secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_7 }}
        SECRET_7: ${{ secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_8 }}

# Only run when the 'auto-investigate' label is applied
if: ${{ github.event.label.name == 'auto-investigate' }}

concurrency:
  group: gh-aw-${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.event.issue.number }}

# Add the pre-activation output of the randomly selected PAT
jobs:
  pre-activation:
    outputs:
      copilot_pat_number: ${{ steps.select-copilot-pat.outputs.copilot_pat_number }}

# Override the COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN expression used in the activation job
engine:
  id: copilot
  env:
    COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ case(needs.pre_activation.outputs.copilot_pat_number == '0', secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN, needs.pre_activation.outputs.copilot_pat_number == '1', secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_2, needs.pre_activation.outputs.copilot_pat_number == '2', secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_3, needs.pre_activation.outputs.copilot_pat_number == '3', secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_4, needs.pre_activation.outputs.copilot_pat_number == '4', secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_5, needs.pre_activation.outputs.copilot_pat_number == '5', secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_6, needs.pre_activation.outputs.copilot_pat_number == '6', secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_7, needs.pre_activation.outputs.copilot_pat_number == '7', secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN_8, secrets.COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN) }}

permissions:
  contents: read
  issues: read
  pull-requests: read

tools:
  github:
    toolsets: [repos, issues, pull_requests]
  bash: ["cat", "grep", "head", "tail", "find", "ls", "wc", "jq", "sort", "diff", "sed", "awk"]
  edit:

safe-outputs:
  add-comment:
    max: 2
  create-pull-request:
    max: 1
  add-labels:
    max: 3

network:
  allowed:
    - defaults

timeout-minutes: 30
---

# Issue Investigation

You are a senior engineering investigation agent for the dotnet/skills repository. You have been triggered because the `auto-investigate` label was added to issue #${{ github.event.issue.number }}.

Your goal is to perform a deep, thorough investigation of the issue, understand the root cause, and either suggest optimal next steps or — if the fix is clear — implement it and open a draft PR.

## Step 1: Understand the Issue

1. Use the `get_issue` tool to fetch the full issue content (title, body, labels, comments)
2. Read all comments on the issue using the `get_issue_comments` tool
3. Identify:
   - What is the reported problem or requested change?
   - Are there reproduction steps?
   - Are there error messages, logs, or stack traces?
   - What area of the codebase is affected?

## Step 2: Explore the Codebase

Based on the issue content, explore the relevant parts of the codebase:

1. Read the CODEOWNERS file to understand ownership: `cat .github/CODEOWNERS`
2. List the repository structure to orient yourself: `find plugins/ -maxdepth 3 -type f | head -100`
3. Search for files and code related to the issue using bash tools (`grep -r`, `find`, `cat`)
4. If the issue mentions specific files, skills, or plugins — read them in full
5. Look at recent commits and changes in the affected area if relevant

## Step 3: Research Related Issues

1. Use `search_issues` to find related open and closed issues
2. Look for:
   - Duplicates that may have already been resolved
   - Related issues that provide additional context
   - Past discussions that inform the solution approach
3. Note any patterns (e.g., recurring issue in the same area)

## Step 4: Multi-Model Plan Generation and Validation

Before taking any action, generate independent plans from multiple models and synthesize the best approach.

### 4a. Prepare a planning brief

Write a concise planning brief that summarizes everything you have learned so far. Include:
- The issue summary and key details
- Root cause hypothesis (if any)
- Relevant files and code paths discovered
- Related issues found
- Constraints (e.g., scope, backward compatibility, ownership)

### 4b. Dispatch planning tasks to three models

Invoke the following **three inline sub-agents** (`task` tool, `agent_type: "general-purpose"`, `model: "<model>`) with `claude-opus-4.6`, `gpt-5.2-codex`, `gemini-3-pro-preview` models. Each sub-agent runs a different model so you get diverse perspectives. Pass each the same planning brief and ask each to produce a structured plan.

The sub-agent prompt is:

   > You are a senior engineering planning assistant. You will receive a planning brief about a GitHub issue in the dotnet/skills repository.
   >
   > Produce a structured plan with the following sections:
   > - **Problem statement**: one-sentence summary of the root cause
   > - **Proposed solution**: what changes to make and why
   > - **Affected files**: list of files that would be modified
   > - **Risk assessment**: what could go wrong, edge cases, scope creep
   > - **Alternative approaches**: at least one alternative considered and why it was rejected
   > - **Confidence**: High / Medium / Low with rationale
   >
   > Be thorough and precise. Focus only on the information provided in the brief.

### 4c. Review and synthesize

Once all three sub-agent plans are returned, review them critically:

1. **Compare** the three plans side-by-side:
   - Do they agree on the root cause? Disagreement is a red flag — investigate further.
   - Do they propose the same solution? If so, confidence is high.
   - Do they identify different risks? Union of all identified risks is the true risk set.

2. **Synthesize a final plan** that takes the best elements from each:
   - Prefer the solution approach that the majority of models agree on
   - Include all unique risks identified across the three plans
   - If the models significantly disagree on approach, document all approaches in the investigation report and let a human decide

3. **Decide**:
   - If at least 2 of 3 models agree and confidence is Medium or High → proceed to implementation
   - If all 3 disagree or confidence is Low across the board → do NOT implement; document findings only
   - If any model identifies a risk that the others missed and it is serious → pause and document

## Step 5: Implement (if plan is validated)

Based on your validated plan, determine the best path forward:

### If the fix or implementation is clear and contained:
- Implement the change using the `edit` tool
- Create a draft pull request linked to the issue using `create_pull_request`
- The PR title should reference the issue: `Fix #<number>: <brief description>`
- The PR body should include:
  - `Fixes #<issue_number>` to auto-link
  - A summary of what was changed and why
  - Any testing considerations
- Add the label `auto-investigation-pr` to the PR

### If the fix is NOT clear or requires significant design decisions:
- Document your findings thoroughly
- Suggest 2-3 possible approaches with trade-offs
- Identify who should be consulted (from CODEOWNERS)
- List specific questions that need answers before proceeding

## Step 6: Post Investigation Report

Add a comment to the issue with your investigation results:

- Start with "**🔍 Issue Investigation**"
- **Summary**: 2-3 sentences on what you found
- **Root Cause** (if identified): explain the underlying problem

<details><summary>📂 Codebase Analysis</summary>

- Files examined and their relevance
- Code paths involved
- Related configuration or dependencies

</details>

<details><summary>🔗 Related Issues</summary>

- Links to related issues with brief explanation of relevance

</details>

<details><summary>📋 Recommended Next Steps</summary>

- Ordered list of specific, actionable steps
- If a PR was created, link to it
- If not, explain what is needed before a fix can be implemented
- Tag relevant owners from CODEOWNERS

</details>

## Important Guidelines

- Be thorough but focused — investigate the specific issue, do not go on tangents
- If you create a PR, keep the change minimal and well-scoped
- Do NOT make speculative changes — only implement fixes you are confident about
- Do NOT communicate directly with users outside of the issue comment
- If the issue is ambiguous, err on the side of documenting findings rather than implementing a potentially wrong fix