Deploy Fix Skill

Diagnose a build, CI, or deployment failure, choose the safest repair path, and fix it — classify complexity first, then either fix directly or track progress through structured phases.

<request_routing>

Positive triggers

A build command fails with a concrete error such as
```
Module not found
```
, type errors, or compilation failures.
A CI pipeline step fails with a specific error in logs (lint, test, build, or deploy stage).
A deployment fails with a concrete error such as function timeout, missing env vars, or platform-specific build errors.
A specific folder or workspace within a monorepo fails to build.

Out-of-scope

Runtime bugs in application code with a reproduction path. Route to
```
bug-fix
```
.
Security audits, exploit review, or trust-boundary analysis. Route to
```
security-review
```
.
New feature work, refactors, or speculative cleanup not tied to a concrete failure.
General performance optimization without a failing build or deploy.

Boundary cases

If the user asks for root-cause analysis only, stay in diagnosis mode and do not edit.
If a CI failure is caused by a single runtime bug (e.g., a failing test from a code defect), this skill owns the CI-level fix; hand off the underlying code bug to
```
bug-fix
```
if the root cause is application logic.
If the failure spans build + deployment + runtime, own the build/deploy layer and hand off runtime to
```
bug-fix
```
.

</request_routing>

<argument_validation>

If ARGUMENT is missing, ask immediately:

text

What build/CI/deploy failure should be fixed?
- Error message or failing log output
- Build command or CI step that fails
- Full repo build or specific folder/workspace?
- CI provider (GitHub Actions, Vercel, etc.) if applicable
- Regression or new? (Did it work before? When did it start failing?)
- Consistent or intermittent?
- Recent changes, suspect commits, or environment details
- Relevant config files (package.json, tsconfig, CI config, vercel.json, etc.)

</argument_validation>

<mandatory_reasoning>

Mandatory Sequential Thinking

Always run

sequential-thinking

before implementation. Depth scales with complexity:

Simple (3 thoughts): Identify failing step -> determine fix -> verify approach
Medium (5 thoughts): Classify -> reproduce locally -> hypothesize -> compare options -> recommend
Complex (7+ thoughts): Classify -> reproduce -> analyze dependency chain -> check CI config -> hypothesize multiple causes -> compare options -> assess cross-cutting impact -> recommend

Recommended sequence:

Complexity classification
Failure reproduction and log analysis
Root-cause hypotheses
Option comparison
Final recommendation

Before any edit, collect root-cause evidence from build logs, CI output, or deployment logs and reduce the problem to the narrowest failing boundary you can verify.

</mandatory_reasoning>

<complexity_classification>

Complexity Classification

Classify immediately after sequential-thinking:

Complexity	Signals	Examples	Path
Simple	Single file/config, clear error message, obvious root cause, one fix path, low risk	Missing env var, single typo in config, one outdated dependency, clear type error in one file	Fix-now -- proceed directly without flow tracking
Complex	Multiple packages/configs involved, dependency chain issues, CI environment mismatch, fix has side effects across workspaces, multiple valid fix strategies	Cross-workspace type error chain, CI-only failure with no local repro, lockfile conflicts across multiple packages, build succeeds but deploy fails	Tracked -- create `.hypercore/deploy-fix/flow.json`

Announce the classification:

Complexity: [simple/complex] -- [one-line reason]

When uncertain, classify as complex. It is cheaper to track than to lose investigation progress.

</complexity_classification>

<flow_tracking>

Flow Tracking (Complex Path Only)

When classified as complex, initialize the flow:

bash

mkdir -p .hypercore/deploy-fix

Write

.hypercore/deploy-fix/flow.json

and update it as each phase progresses. See

references/flow-schema.md

for the full schema.

Phase progression

Phase	Description	Next
`investigate`	Reproduce failure, analyze logs, isolate root cause	`options`
`options`	Present 2-3 fix options with tradeoffs	`confirm`
`confirm`	Wait for and record user selection	`fix`
`fix`	Implement selected option	`verify`
`verify`	Run build/CI/deploy validation, report outcome	done

Resume support

.hypercore/deploy-fix/flow.json

already exists, read it first and continue from the last incomplete phase (

in_progress

pending

). Do not restart completed phases.

</flow_tracking>

<execution_modes>

Use one of these branches explicitly:

Diagnose-only: reproduce failure, isolate the failing step, summarize evidence, and stop before code edits.
Fix-now (simple path): If the user explicitly asks for a direct fix and one path is clearly the safest, say which path you are taking and implement without a second confirmation round. No flow tracking.
Option-first (complex path): present 2-3 repair options with flow tracking and wait for user selection.
Handoff: route runtime application bugs to
```
bug-fix
```
and security review requests to
```
security-review
```
.

</execution_modes>

<investigation_strategy>

Investigation Strategy

Check these areas in order of likelihood:

Build logs: read the exact error output, identify the first failure point
Dependency issues: lockfile conflicts (
```
package-lock.json
```
/
```
pnpm-lock.yaml
```
integrity), missing packages, version mismatches, peer dependency warnings, hoisting problems

Config files:

tsconfig.json

package.json

next.config.*

vercel.json

vercel.ts

, CI workflow files, bundler config

Environment: Node.js version, env vars, platform-specific differences (local vs CI vs deploy target), memory limits (OOM during build)
Build cache: stale or corrupted build cache (
```
.next/
```
,
```
.turbo/
```
,
```
node_modules/.cache/
```
),
```
--force
```
rebuild to isolate
Cross-workspace: monorepo dependency graph, build order, shared package version drift
Recent changes:
```
git log
```
and
```
git diff
```
to find suspect commits that may have introduced the failure

</investigation_strategy>

Simple Path (Fix-now)

Step	Task	Tool
1	Validate input, sequential-thinking (3 thoughts)	sequential-thinking
2	Classify as simple	-
3	Reproduce failure locally, read error output	Bash + Read
4	Identify root cause from logs/config	Read/Grep/Glob
5	Announce fix path and implement	Edit
6	Run validation (build/lint/typecheck/deploy)	Bash
7	Report outcome and changed files	-

Complex Path (Option-first)

Step	Task	Tool
1	Validate input, sequential-thinking (7+ thoughts)	sequential-thinking
2	Classify as complex, create `.hypercore/deploy-fix/flow.json`	Write
3	Deep investigation: reproduce, analyze logs, trace dependency chain -> update flow `investigate: completed`	Bash + Read/Grep/Glob + Edit
4	Present 2-3 fix options -> update flow `options: completed`	Edit
5	Wait for user selection -> update flow `confirm: completed`	Edit
6	Implement selected option -> update flow `fix: completed`	Edit/Write
7	Run validation -> update flow `verify: completed`	Bash + Edit
8	Report outcome, set flow status to `completed`	Edit

</workflow>

<option_presentation>

Use this format (complex path):

markdown

## Deploy Failure Analysis

**Root cause**: ...
**Failure scope**: [repo-wide / workspace / CI step / deploy target]
**Complexity**: complex

### Option 1: ... (Recommended)
- **Pros**:
- **Cons**:
- **Risk**:
- **Files**:

### Option 2: ...
- **Pros**:
- **Cons**:
- **Risk**:
- **Files**:

### Option 3: ... (Temporary)
- **Pros**:
- **Cons**:
- **Risk**:
- **Files**:

Recommendation: Option N (reason ...)
Which option should I apply? (1/2/3)

</option_presentation>

<implementation_rules>

Do not modify code before user option selection unless in the explicit Fix-now branch.
Avoid speculative edits; use evidence from build/CI/deploy logs only.
Keep scope limited to the failing build/CI/deploy path and its direct dependencies.
Always run targeted validation for the changed path: rebuild the failing target, re-run the failing CI step, or re-trigger the failing deploy.
Report the commands run, the key result lines, and the touched files in the final report.
If validation cannot run locally (e.g., CI-only environment), say why and what remains unverified.

Reporting

After execution, report:

markdown

## Done

**Failure**: [original error / failing step]
**Root cause**: [what was wrong]
**Fix applied**: [which option or approach]
**Changes**: [list of changed files]
**Validation**: [what was verified and result]

For complex path: also update

.hypercore/deploy-fix/flow.json

status to

completed

</implementation_rules>

Execution checklist:

ARGUMENT validated
sequential-thinking completed (depth matches complexity)
Complexity classified (simple/complex)
Flow JSON created and maintained (complex path only)
Root-cause evidence collected from logs/config
2-3 options presented (complex path) or fix path announced (simple path)
User choice confirmed (complex path)
Build/CI/deploy validation executed
Outcome + touched files reported
Flow JSON finalized with
```
completed
```
status (complex path only)

Forbidden:

Speculative fix without build/CI/deploy log evidence
Immediate implementation without options (complex path)
Implementation without explicit user choice (complex path)
Completion claim without running the failing build/CI/deploy command
Skipping flow JSON updates in complex path

</validation>

deploy-fix

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content