home / skills / beshkenadze / claude-skills-marketplace / verify-known-issues

verify-known-issues skill

/skills/meta/verify-known-issues

This skill verifies external known issues before claiming them, performing web searches, evaluating evidence, and presenting citations.

npx playbooks add skill beshkenadze/claude-skills-marketplace --skill verify-known-issues

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (1)
SKILL.md
5.2 KB
---
name: verify-known-issues
description: Verify claims about known issues in libraries or tools. Use when about to state something is a "known issue", "known bug", or "known limitation".
version: 1.0.0
---

# Verify Known Issues

## Trigger

This skill activates when Claude is about to say ANY of these patterns:

- "This is a known issue with..."
- "This is a known bug in..."
- "This is a known limitation of..."
- "This is a known problem with..."
- "There's a known issue..."
- "This is a documented issue..."
- "This is a common issue with..."
- "This is a recognized bug..."

## Overview

Claude may hallucinate "known issues" that don't exist. Claims about external software bugs, library limitations, or platform issues MUST be verified before stating them as fact.

## Required Workflow

### Step 1: STOP Before Claiming

Do NOT write "This is a known issue" until verification is complete.

### Step 2: Web Search Verification

Use WebSearch to find evidence:

```
Search queries to try:
- "[library/tool name] [error message] known issue"
- "[library/tool name] [behavior] bug github"
- "[library/tool name] [version] issue"
- "site:github.com [library] [error] issue"
```

### Step 3: Evaluate Evidence

Evidence MUST include at least ONE of:
- GitHub issue with multiple confirmations
- Official documentation mentioning the limitation
- Stack Overflow answer with significant upvotes
- Official bug tracker entry
- Release notes acknowledging the bug

### Step 4: Sub-Agent Consensus

Launch a verification agent to review the evidence:

```
Use Task tool with subagent_type="general-purpose":
- Provide the claim you want to make
- Provide the evidence URLs found
- Ask: "Does this evidence support claiming this is a 'known issue'?"
```

### Step 5: Report with Citations

If verified, state the claim WITH citations:

```markdown
This is a known issue with [X].

Evidence:
- [GitHub Issue #123](url) - Reported by N users
- [Official docs](url) - Documents this limitation
```

If NOT verified, rephrase:

```markdown
I encountered [behavior]. I couldn't find documentation
confirming this is a known issue, so it may be:
- A configuration problem
- An edge case
- A misunderstanding on my part

Let me investigate further...
```

## Decision Tree

```
About to claim "known issue"?
    │
    ▼
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ STOP - Do not write claim   │
└─────────────────────────────┘
    │
    ▼
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ WebSearch for evidence      │
│ (3+ different queries)      │
└─────────────────────────────┘
    │
    ▼
Found credible sources?
    │
    ├─► NO ──► Rephrase as observation, not fact
    │
    ▼ YES
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ Launch verification agent   │
│ with evidence context       │
└─────────────────────────────┘
    │
    ▼
Agent confirms?
    │
    ├─► NO ──► Rephrase as observation
    │
    ▼ YES
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ State claim WITH citations  │
└─────────────────────────────┘
```

## Examples

### BAD (Before This Skill)

```
Claude: "This is a known issue with Python 3.14's asyncio
module where get_event_loop() is deprecated."
```

No evidence provided. May be hallucinated.

### GOOD (After This Skill)

```
Claude: Let me verify this before claiming it's a known issue...

[WebSearch: "python 3.14 asyncio get_event_loop deprecated"]

Found:
- PEP 594: Confirms deprecation
- Python docs: Documents new pattern
- GitHub cpython#12345: Migration guide

[Verification agent confirms evidence]

Claude: "This is a known issue with Python 3.14 -
`get_event_loop()` was deprecated per PEP 594.

Evidence: [PEP 594](url), [Python Docs](url)

The fix is to use `asyncio.run()` or create an explicit loop."
```

## Exceptions

This skill does NOT apply to:
- Errors you just observed and reproduced yourself
- Issues you personally verified in the current session
- Statements about Claude's own limitations
- General programming concepts (not external tool bugs)

## Anti-Patterns

| Don't | Do |
|-------|-----|
| "This is a known issue" (no source) | Search first, cite sources |
| Skip verification for "obvious" bugs | All external claims need evidence |
| Cite memory alone | Fresh search required |
| Single unverified source | Multiple sources or official docs |
| Trust outdated information | Check issue is still open/relevant |

## Checklist

- [ ] Identified trigger phrase ("known issue", "known bug", etc.)
- [ ] Performed 3+ web searches with different queries
- [ ] Found credible evidence (GitHub, official docs, etc.)
- [ ] Launched verification sub-agent with context
- [ ] Sub-agent confirmed evidence supports claim
- [ ] Included citations in final statement
- [ ] If unverified, rephrased as observation

Overview

This skill verifies claims that something is a "known issue", "known bug", or "known limitation" before stating them as fact. It prevents hallucinated or unverified assertions about external libraries, tools, or platforms by requiring evidence, a secondary review, and citations when a claim is supported.

How this skill works

When a response would assert a known issue, the skill pauses and runs targeted web searches using multiple queries. It requires credible evidence (e.g., GitHub issues, official docs, release notes, or highly upvoted Stack Overflow answers), launches a verification sub-agent to review the findings, and formats the outcome as either a cited claim or a cautious observation.

When to use it

  • Before saying "This is a known issue/bug/limitation" about any external library or tool
  • When referencing reported platform behavior or incompatibilities
  • When summarizing community-reported problems or regression reports
  • When recommending workarounds tied to a claimed bug
  • When updating documentation or release notes that mention external issues

Best practices

  • Stop and do not assert a known issue until verification completes
  • Run 3+ different web searches with focused queries (GitHub, docs, Stack Overflow)
  • Require at least one credible source: GitHub issue, official docs, release notes, or high-vote SO answer
  • Use a verification sub-agent to get a second opinion on whether evidence supports the claim
  • If evidence is lacking, rephrase as an observation and list possible causes and next steps
  • Cite URLs clearly when a claim is verified and summarize the supporting evidence

Example use cases

  • Checking whether a reported exception in a library is a documented bug before advising a workaround
  • Verifying claims about API deprecations or breaking changes prior to recommending migrations
  • Confirming that a platform-specific limitation is acknowledged in release notes before including it in docs
  • Assessing whether multiple user reports constitute a confirmed regression before escalating
  • Turning an uncertain observation into a safe, evidence-backed statement with citations

FAQ

What counts as credible evidence?

Credible evidence includes GitHub issues with confirmations, official documentation or release notes, official bug tracker entries, or high-vote Stack Overflow answers.

What if I reproduced the issue myself?

If you reproduced and verified the issue in-session, this skill does not require web verification; document your reproduction steps and results.