Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

try-fix(尝试修复)

try-fix 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

try-fix 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 47,767。

总安装 720周安装 30GitHub Stars 23,178下载 240核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:try-fix(尝试修复)
来源仓库:https://github.com/dotnet/maui
仓库路径:skills/try-fix
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/dotnet/maui --skill try-fix
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/dotnet/maui --skill try-fix

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

try-fix 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中根据关键词或任务场景快速定位候选结果。通过 GitHub 安装,需结合原始 README 核验具体用法和权限边界。安装前建议确认维护状态及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

注意该技能当前分类为研究检索,功能以实际文档为准。

来源仓库内路径:skills/try-fix

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/dotnet/maui --skill try-fix;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

try-fix 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/dotnet/maui --skill try-fix。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

try-fix 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

try-fix 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

try-fix 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

try-fix 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 720 次,近一周安装 30 次,下载 240 次,GitHub 23,178 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

try-fix 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 来源仓库有 23,178 星,维护活跃度相对可查。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
try-fix

尝试修复 · 本页

72023,178只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Try Fix Skill

Attempts ONE fix for a given problem. Receives all context upfront, tries a single approach, tests it, and reports what happened.

Core Principles

  1. Always run - Never question whether to run. The invoker decides WHEN, you decide WHAT alternative to try
  2. Single-shot - Each invocation = ONE fix idea, tested, reported
  3. Alternative-focused - Always propose something DIFFERENT from existing fixes (review PR changes first)
  4. Empirical - Actually implement and test, don't just theorize
  5. Context-driven - All information provided upfront; don't search for additional context

Every invocation: Review existing fixes → Think of DIFFERENT approach → Implement and test → Report results

⚠️ CRITICAL: Sequential Execution Only

🚨 Try-fix runs MUST be executed ONE AT A TIME - NEVER in parallel.

Why: Each try-fix run:

  • Modifies the same source files (SafeAreaExtensions.cs, etc.)
  • Uses the same device/emulator for testing
  • Runs EstablishBrokenBaseline.ps1 which reverts files to a known state

If run in parallel:

  • Multiple agents will overwrite each other's code changes
  • Device tests will interfere with each other
  • Baseline script will conflict, causing unpredictable file states
  • Results will be corrupted and unreliable

Correct pattern: Run attempt-1, wait for completion, then run attempt-2, etc.

Inputs

All inputs are provided by the invoker (CI, agent, or user).

InputRequiredDescription
ProblemYesDescription of the bug/issue to fix
Test commandYesRepository-specific script to build, deploy, and test (e.g., pwsh.github/scripts/BuildAndRunHostApp.ps1 -Platform android -TestFilter "Issue12345"). ALWAYS use this script - NEVER manually build/compile.
Target filesYesFiles to investigate for the fix
PlatformYesTarget platform (android, ios, windows, maccatalyst)
HintsOptionalSuggested approaches, prior attempts, or areas to focus on
BaselineOptionalGit ref or instructions for establishing broken state (default: current state)

Outputs

Results reported back to the invoker:

FieldDescription
approachWhat fix was attempted (brief description)
files_changedWhich files were modified
resultPass, Fail, or Blocked
analysisWhy it worked, or why it failed and what was learned
diffThe actual code changes made (for review)

Output Structure (MANDATORY)

FIRST STEP: Create output directory before doing anything else.

# Set issue/PR number explicitly (from branch name, PR context, or manual input)
$IssueNumber = "<ISSUE_OR_PR_NUMBER>"  # Replace with actual number

# Find next attempt number
$tryFixDir = "CustomAgentLogsTmp/PRState/$IssueNumber/PRAgent/try-fix"
$existingAttempts = (Get-ChildItem "$tryFixDir/attempt-*" -Directory -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue).Count
$attemptNum = $existingAttempts + 1

# Create output directory
$OUTPUT_DIR = "$tryFixDir/attempt-$attemptNum"
New-Item -ItemType Directory -Path $OUTPUT_DIR -Force | Out-Null

Write-Host "Output directory: $OUTPUT_DIR"

Required files to create in $OUTPUT_DIR:

FileWhen to CreateContent
baseline.logAfter Step 2 (Baseline)Output from EstablishBrokenBaseline.ps1 proving baseline was established
approach.mdAfter Step 4 (Design)What fix you're attempting and why it's different from existing fixes
result.txtAfter Step 6 (Test)Single word: Pass, Fail, or Blocked
fix.diffAfter Step 6 (Test)Output of git diff showing your changes
test-output.logAfter Step 6 (Test)Full output from test command
analysis.mdAfter Step 6 (Test)Why it worked/failed, insights learned

Example approach.md:

## Approach: Geometric Off-Screen Check

Skip RequestApplyInsets for views completely off-screen using simple bounds check:
`viewLeft >= screenWidth || viewRight <= 0 || viewTop >= screenHeight || viewBottom <= 0`

**Different from existing fix:** Current fix uses HashSet tracking. This approach uses pure geometry with no state.

Example result.txt:

Pass

Completion Criteria

The skill is complete when:

  • Problem understood from provided context
  • ONE fix approach designed and implemented
  • Fix tested with provided test command (iterated up to 3 times if errors/failures)
  • Either: Tests PASS ✅, or exhausted attempts and documented why approach won't work ❌
  • Analysis provided (success explanation or failure reasoning with evidence)
  • Artifacts saved to output directory
  • Baseline restored (working directory clean)
  • Results reported to invoker

🚨 CRITICAL: What counts as "Pass" vs "Fail"

ScenarioResultExplanation
Test command runs, tests pass✅ PassActual validation
Test command runs, tests fail❌ FailFix didn't work
Code compiles but no device available⚠️ BlockedDevice/emulator unavailable - report with explanation
Code compiles but test command errors❌ FailInfrastructure issue is still a failure
Code doesn't compile❌ FailFix is broken

NEVER claim "Pass" based on:

  • ❌ "Code compiles successfully" alone
  • ❌ "Code review validates the logic"
  • ❌ "The approach is sound"
  • ❌ "Device was unavailable but fix looks correct"

Pass REQUIRES: The test command executed AND reported test success.

If device/emulator is unavailable: Report result.txt = Blocked with explanation. Do NOT manufacture a Pass.

Exhaustion criteria: Stop after 3 iterations if:

  1. Code compiles but tests consistently fail for same reason
  2. Root cause analysis reveals fundamental flaw in approach
  3. Alternative fixes would require completely different strategy

Never stop due to: Compile errors (fix them), infrastructure blame (debug your code), giving up too early.


Workflow

Step 1: Understand the Problem and Review Existing Fixes

MANDATORY: Review what has already been tried:

  1. Check for existing PR changes: git diff origin/main HEAD --name-only

- Review what files were changed - Read the actual code changes to understand the current fix approach

  1. Review prior attempts if any are known:

- Note which approaches failed and WHY - Note which approaches partially succeeded

  1. Identify what makes your approach DIFFERENT:

- Don't repeat the same logic/pattern as existing fixes - Think of alternative approaches: different algorithm, different location, different strategy - If existing fix modifies X, consider modifying Y instead - If existing fix adds logic, consider removing/simplifying instead

Examples of alternatives:

  • Existing fix: Add caching → Alternative: Change when updates happen
  • Existing fix: Fix in handler → Alternative: Fix in platform layer

Review the provided context:

  • What is the bug/issue?
  • What test command verifies the fix?
  • What files should be investigated?
  • Are there hints about what to try or avoid?

Do NOT search for additional context. Work with what's provided.

Step 2: Establish Baseline (MANDATORY)

🚨 ONLY use EstablishBrokenBaseline.ps1 — NEVER use git checkout, git restore, or git reset to revert fix files.

The script auto-restores any previous baseline, tracks state, and prevents loops. Manual git commands bypass all of this and WILL cause infinite loops in CI.

pwsh .github/scripts/EstablishBrokenBaseline.ps1 *>&1 | Tee-Object -FilePath "$OUTPUT_DIR/baseline.log"

Verify baseline was established:

Select-String -Path "$OUTPUT_DIR/baseline.log" -Pattern "Baseline established"

If the script fails with "No fix files detected": Report as Blocked — do NOT switch branches.

If something fails mid-attempt: pwsh.github/scripts/EstablishBrokenBaseline.ps1 -Restore

Step 3: Analyze Target Files

Read the target files to understand the code.

Key questions:

  • What is the root cause of this bug?
  • Where should the fix go?
  • What's the minimal change needed?

Step 4: Design ONE Fix

Based on your analysis and any provided hints, design a single fix approach:

  • Which file(s) to change
  • What the change is
  • Why you think this will work

If hints suggest specific approaches, prioritize those.

IMMEDIATELY create approach.md in your output directory:

@"
## Approach: [Brief Name]

[Description of what you're changing and why]

**Different from existing fix:** [How this differs from PR's current approach]
"@ | Set-Content "$OUTPUT_DIR/approach.md"

Step 5: Apply the Fix

Implement your fix. Use git status --short and git diff to track changes.

Step 6: Test and Iterate (MANDATORY)

🚨 CRITICAL: ALWAYS use the provided test command script - NEVER manually build/compile.

For.NET MAUI repository: Use BuildAndRunHostApp.ps1 which handles:

  • Building the project
  • Deploying to device/simulator
  • Running tests
  • Capturing logs
# Capture output to test-output.log while also displaying it
pwsh .github/scripts/BuildAndRunHostApp.ps1 -Platform <platform> -TestFilter "<filter>" *>&1 | Tee-Object -FilePath "$OUTPUT_DIR/test-output.log"

Testing Loop (Iterate until SUCCESS or exhausted):

  1. Run the test command - It will build, deploy, and test automatically
  2. Check the result:

- ✅ Tests PASS → Move to Step 7 (Capture Artifacts) - ❌ Compile errors → Fix compilation issues (see below), go to step 1 - ❌ Tests FAIL (runtime) → Analyze failure, fix code, go to step 1

  1. Maximum 3 iterations - If still failing after 3 attempts, analyze if approach is fundamentally flawed
  2. Document why - If exhausted, explain what you learned and why the approach won't work

Behavioral constraints:

  • ⚠️ NEVER blame "test infrastructure" - assume YOUR fix has a bug
  • Compile errors mean "work harder" - not "give up"
  • DO NOT manually build - always rerun the test command script

See references/compile-errors.md for error patterns and iteration examples.

Step 7: Capture Artifacts (MANDATORY)

Before reverting, save ALL required files to $OUTPUT_DIR:

# 1. Save result (MUST be exactly "Pass", "Fail", or "Blocked")
"Pass" | Set-Content "$OUTPUT_DIR/result.txt"  # or "Fail"

# 2. Save the diff
git diff | Set-Content "$OUTPUT_DIR/fix.diff"

# 3. Save test output (should already exist from Step 6)
# Copy-Item "path/to/test-output.log" "$OUTPUT_DIR/test-output.log"

# 4. Save analysis
@"
## Analysis

**Result:** Pass/Fail/Blocked

**What happened:** [Description of test results]

**Why it worked/failed:** [Root cause analysis]

**Insights:** [What was learned that could help future attempts]
"@ | Set-Content "$OUTPUT_DIR/analysis.md"

Verify all required files exist:

@("baseline.log", "approach.md", "result.txt", "fix.diff", "analysis.md", "test-output.log") | ForEach-Object {
    if (Test-Path "$OUTPUT_DIR/$_") { Write-Host "✅ $_" }
    else { Write-Host "❌ MISSING: $_" }
}

Analysis quality matters. Bad: "Didn't work". Good: "Fix attempted to reset state in OnPageSelected, but this fires after layout measurement. The cached value was already used."

Step 8: Restore Working Directory (MANDATORY)

ALWAYS restore, even if fix failed.

pwsh .github/scripts/EstablishBrokenBaseline.ps1 -Restore

🚨 Do NOT use git checkout HEAD --. or git clean to restore — use the script.

Step 9: Report Results

Provide structured output to the invoker:

## Try-Fix Result

**Approach:** [Brief description of what was tried]

**Files Changed:**
- `path/to/file.cs` (+X/-Y lines)

**Result:** ✅ PASS / ❌ FAIL

**Analysis:**
[Why it worked, or why it failed and what was learned]

**Diff:**

[The actual changes made]


**This Attempt's Status:** Done/NeedsRetry **Reasoning:** [Why this specific approach succeeded or failed]

Determining Status: Set Done when you've completed testing this approach (whether it passed or failed). Set NeedsRetry only if you hit a transient error (network timeout, flaky test) and want to retry the same approach.

Error Handling

SituationAction
Problem unclearReport "insufficient context" - specify what's missing
Test command fails to runReport build/setup error with details
Test times outReport timeout, include partial output
Can't determine fix approachReport "no viable approach identified" with reasoning
Git state unrecoverableRun git checkout HEAD -- . and git clean -fd if needed

Guidelines for Proposing Fixes

Good Fix Approaches

✅ Null/state checks - Guard against unexpected null or state ✅ Lifecycle timing - Move code to correct lifecycle event ✅ Cache invalidation - Reset stale cached values

Approaches to Avoid

❌ Massive refactors - Keep changes minimal ❌ Suppressing symptoms - Fix root cause, not symptoms ❌ Multiple unrelated changes - ONE focused fix per invocation


See references/example-invocation.md for a complete example with sample inputs.

平台分布

Codex

35.52%
按下载量换算85

Claude

30.48%
按下载量换算73

Cursor

21.62%
按下载量换算52

Gemini CLI

10.16%
按下载量换算24

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills