explainx.ainewsletter3.4k
Productivity

trace▌

boshu2/agentops · updated Apr 8, 2026

MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.

$npx skills add https://github.com/boshu2/agentops --skill trace
0 commentsdiscussion
summary

Quick Ref: Trace design decisions through CASS sessions, handoffs, git, and artifacts. Output: .agents/research/YYYY-MM-DD-trace-*.md

skill.md

Trace Skill

Quick Ref: Trace design decisions through CASS sessions, handoffs, git, and artifacts. Output: .agents/research/YYYY-MM-DD-trace-*.md

YOU MUST EXECUTE THIS WORKFLOW. Do not just describe it.

When to Use

  • Trace HOW architectural decisions evolved
  • Find WHEN a concept was introduced
  • Understand WHY something was designed a certain way
  • Build provenance chain for design decisions

For knowledge artifact lineage (learnings, patterns, tiers), use /provenance instead.

CLI dependencies: cass (session search). If cass is unavailable, skip transcript search and rely on git log, handoff docs, and .agents/ artifacts for decision tracing.

Execution Steps

Given /trace <concept>:

Step 1: Classify Target Type

Determine what kind of provenance to trace:

IF target is a file path (contains "/" or "."):
  → Use /provenance (artifact lineage)

IF target is a git ref (sha, branch, tag):
  → Use git-based tracing (Step 2b)

ELSE (keyword/concept):
  → Use design decision tracing (Step 2a)

Step 2a: Design Decision Tracing (Concepts)

Launch 4 parallel search agents (CASS, Handoff, Git, Research) and wait for all to complete.

Backend: Agents use Task(subagent_type="Explore") which maps to task(subagent_type="explore") in OpenCode. See skills/shared/SKILL.md ("Runtime-Native Spawn Backend Selection") for the shared contract.

Read references/discovery-patterns.md for agent definitions and prompts.

Step 2b: Git-Based Tracing (Commits/Refs)

Read references/discovery-patterns.md for git-based tracing commands.

Step 3: Build Timeline

Merge results from all sources into a single chronological timeline (oldest first). Deduplicate same-day/same-session events. Every claim needs a source citation.

Step 4: Extract Key Decisions

For each event in timeline, identify:

  • What changed: The decision or evolution
  • Why: Reasoning if available
  • Who: Session/author/commit author
  • Evidence: Link to source (session path, file, commit)

Step 5: Write Trace Report

Write to: .agents/research/YYYY-MM-DD-trace-<concept-slug>.md

Read references/report-template.md for the full report format and deduplication rules.

Step 6: Report to User

Tell the user:

  1. Concept traced successfully
  2. Timeline of evolution (key dates)
  3. Most significant decisions
  4. Location of trace report
  5. Related concepts to explore

Handling Edge Cases

Read references/edge-cases.md for handling: no CASS results, no handoffs, ambiguous concepts (>20 results), and all-sources-empty scenarios. General principle: continue with remaining sources and note gaps in the report.

Key Rules

  • Search ALL sources - CASS, handoffs, git, research
  • Build timeline - chronological evolution is the goal
  • Cite evidence - every claim needs a source
  • Handle gaps gracefully - not all concepts are in all sources
  • Write report - trace must produce .agents/research/ artifact

Relationship to /provenance

Skill Purpose Input Output
/provenance Artifact lineage File path Tier/promotion history
/trace Design decisions Concept/keyword Timeline of evolution

Use /provenance for: "Where did this learning come from?" Use /trace for: "How did we decide on this architecture?"

Examples

# Trace a design decision
/trace "three-level architecture"

# Trace a role/concept
/trace "Chiron"

# Trace a pattern
/trace "brownian ratchet"

# Trace a feature
/trace "parallel wave execution"

Tracing an Architectural Decision

User says: /trace "agent team protocol"

What happens:

  1. Agent classifies target as concept (not file path or git ref)
  2. Agent launches 4 parallel agents: CASS search, handoff search, git log search, research artifact search
  3. CASS finds 8 sessions mentioning "agent team", handoff finds 2 docs, git finds 3 commits, research finds 1 analysis
  4. Agent builds chronological timeline from 2026-01-15 (first mention) to 2026-02-08 (latest update)
  5. Agent extracts 5 key decisions: initial SendMessage design, TeamCreate addition, deliberation protocol, in-process mode, delegate mode
  6. Agent writes trace report to .agents/research/2026-02-13-trace-agent-team-protocol.md with full timeline and citations

Result: Complete evolution timeline showing how agent team protocol developed across 7 sessions with source citations.

Tracing from Git Commit

User says: /trace abc1234

What happens:

  1. Agent detects git ref format (short sha)
  2. Agent runs git-based tracing commands to get commit details, changed files, related commits
  3. Agent uses git log --grep to find related work
  4. Agent searches .agents/ for contemporary research/plans
  5. Agent builds timeline focused on that specific change
  6. Agent writes report showing commit context, what changed, why (from commit message and related docs)

Result: Trace report links commit to broader design context from surrounding artifacts.

Troubleshooting

Problem Cause Solution
CASS returns no results Session search not installed or query too specific Check which cass. If missing, skip CASS and rely on handoffs/git/research. Try broader query terms.
Timeline has gaps Not all decisions documented in searchable artifacts Note gaps in report. Suggest interviewing team members or checking Slack/email archives for missing context.
Too many results (>50 matches) Very broad concept or high-frequency term Read references/edge-cases.md for ambiguous concept handling. Narrow query or filter by date range. Ask user for more specific aspect to trace.
Empty trace report (all sources failed) Concept genuinely undocumented or typo Verify spelling. Try synonyms. Report to user: "No documented history found. This may be a new concept or may need different search terms."
how to use trace

How to use trace on Cursor

AI-first code editor with Composer

1

Prerequisites

Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:

  • ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
  • ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with node --version)
  • ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add trace
2

Execute installation command

Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:

$npx skills add https://github.com/boshu2/agentops --skill trace

The skills CLI fetches trace from GitHub repository boshu2/agentops and configures it for Cursor.

3

Select Cursor when prompted

The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:

◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────
│ • Amp
│ • Antigravity
│ • Cline
│ • Codex
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ • Cursor
│ • Windsurf
4

Verify installation

Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:

.cursor/skills/trace

Reload or restart Cursor to activate trace. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /trace) or your agent's skill management interface.

⚠

Security & Verification Notice

We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.

Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.

Additional Resources

›View source code on GitHub›Skills CLI documentation›Learn more about Cursor›What are agent skills?

List & Monetize Your Skill

Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning

GET_STARTED →

Use Cases▌

User Story & Requirements Generation

Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs

Example

Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios

✓

Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage

Competitive Analysis

Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps

Example

Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities

✓

Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days

Roadmap Prioritization

Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs

Example

Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale

✓

Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster

Stakeholder Communication

Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations

Example

Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement

✓

Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead

Implementation Guide▌

Prerequisites

  • ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
  • ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
  • ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
  • ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels

Time Estimate

30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements

Installation Steps

  1. 1.Install product management skill
  2. 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
  3. 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
  4. 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
  5. 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
  6. 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
  7. 7.Share effective prompts with product team

Common Pitfalls

  • ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
  • ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
  • ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
  • ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
  • ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements

Best Practices▌

✓ Do

  • +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
  • +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
  • +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
  • +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
  • +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
  • +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition

✗ Don't

  • −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
  • −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
  • −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
  • −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
  • −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture

💡 Pro Tips

  • ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
  • ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
  • ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
  • ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs

When to Use This▌

✓ Use When

Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.

✗ Avoid When

Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.

Learning Path▌

  1. 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
  2. 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
  3. 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
  4. 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation

Discussion

Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
  • No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviews

Ratings

4.5★★★★★40 reviews
  • ★★★★★Naina Thompson· Dec 28, 2024

    trace fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Dec 12, 2024

    trace has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.

  • ★★★★★Noah Mehta· Dec 12, 2024

    Registry listing for trace matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • ★★★★★Naina Garcia· Dec 8, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: trace is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • ★★★★★Xiao Taylor· Nov 27, 2024

    trace has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.

  • ★★★★★Henry Thompson· Nov 19, 2024

    Registry listing for trace matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • ★★★★★Daniel Bansal· Nov 7, 2024

    trace reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • ★★★★★Sakshi Patil· Nov 3, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: trace is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • ★★★★★Olivia Rahman· Nov 3, 2024

    trace fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • ★★★★★Sofia Desai· Oct 26, 2024

    I recommend trace for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.

showing 1-10 of 40

1 / 4