Runtime Behavior Probe

Runtime Behavior Probe

Overview

Use this skill to investigate real runtime behavior, not to restate code or documentation. Start by planning the investigation, then execute a case matrix, record observed behavior, and report both the findings and the method used to obtain them.

Core Rules

• Treat this skill as manual-only. Do not rely on implicit invocation.
• Invoking this skill authorizes planning only. Every runtime probe requires explicit user approval after the exact probe has been proposed. Do not infer execution approval from the skill invocation or a general request to investigate runtime behavior.
• Before requesting approval, disclose the source identity, exact command, transitively executed material, known filesystem, environment, network, and host-service capabilities, expected side effects, and control for the proposed probe. Mark unknown capabilities as unknown rather than assuming that they are unavailable.
• Wait for an affirmative response before executing the probe. Approval is bound to the disclosed source, command, executed material, and capability scope. Obtain new approval before changing any of those fields, adding another probe, or expanding the approved matrix.
• A baseline success or smoke case is often the right entry point, but do not stop there when the real question involves edge cases, drift, or failure behavior.
• Plan before running anything. Write the case matrix first, then fill it in with observed results. The matrix can live in a scratch note, a temporary file, or the probe script header.
• Default to proposing local or read-only probes. Consider a live service only when it is clearly relevant, then apply the lightweight gates below before requesting approval.
• Size the probe to the decision. Start with the smallest matrix that can disqualify or validate the current hypothesis, then expand only when uncertainty remains.
• Before a live probe, apply three lightweight gates:
  • Destination gate. Use only a live destination that is clearly allowed for the task.
  • Intent gate. Run the live probe only when the user explicitly wants runtime verification on that integration, or explicitly approves it after you propose the probe.
  • Data gate. If the probe will read environment variables, mutate remote state, incur material cost, or exercise non-public or user data, name the exact variable names or data class and get explicit approval first.
• Classify each case as read-only, mutating, or costly before execution. For mutating or costly cases, or for any live case that will read environment variables, define cleanup or rollback before running the probe.
• Use temporary files or a temporary directory for one-off probe scripts.
• Keep temporary artifacts until the final response is drafted. Then delete them by default unless the user asked to keep them or they are needed for follow-up. Even when artifacts are deleted, keep a short run summary of the command shape, runtime context, and artifact status in the report.
• Before executing a live probe that will read environment variables, tell the user the exact variable names you plan to use and why, then wait for explicit approval. Examples include OPENAI_API_KEY and other expected default names for the system under test.
• When the environment-variable approval gate is required and the request_user_input tool is available, use that tool instead of a plain-text approval question. Ask one concise question with mutually exclusive choices such as Allow once (Recommended) and Do not allow, omit autoResolutionMs, and make the approval single-probe and limited to the exact named variables and destination. If the tool is unavailable, fall back to a concise plain-text approval question and do not proceed until the user explicitly approves.
• Never print secrets, even when they come from standard environment variables that this skill may use.
• For OpenAI API or OpenAI platform probes in this repository, use $openai-knowledge early to confirm contract-sensitive details such as supported parameters, field names, and limits. Use runtime probing to validate or challenge the documented behavior, not to skip the documentation pass entirely. If the docs MCP is unavailable, fall back to the official OpenAI docs and say that you used the fallback in the report.
• For benchmark or comparison probes, make parity explicit before execution. Record what is held constant, what variable is under test, which response-shape constraints keep the comparison fair, and any usage or token counters that matter for interpreting latency or cost.
• For OpenAI hosted tool probes, remove setup ambiguity before attributing a negative result to runtime behavior:
  • Force the tool path with the matching tool_choice when the question depends on tool invocation.
  • Treat container_auto and container_reference as separate cases, not interchangeable setup details.
  • Clear unsupported model or tool options first so they do not invalidate the probe.

Workflow

1. Restate the investigation target in operational terms. Name the runtime surface, the key uncertainty, and the highest-risk behaviors to test.
2. Do a short preflight. Check the relevant code or docs first, decide whether the question needs local or live validation, and note any repo, baseline, or release boundary that matters.
3. Define the decision signal before building the matrix. For a suspected defect, name the exact user-visible symptom, the command or probe that can distinguish it from correct behavior, the expected failing observation, and a known-good control. Confirm that the signal exercises the real producer and caller path rather than only an adjacent helper. Prefer a fast, deterministic local loop when one can answer the question. If no credible signal can be built, state the missing access or artifact and do not substitute a nearby behavior as proof.
4. Create a validation matrix before executing probes. Cover both baseline behavior and the most relevant failure or drift cases. The matrix can live in a scratch note, a temporary file, or a structured header inside the probe script.
5. For each case, choose an execution mode up front:
   • single-shot for deterministic one-run checks.
   • repeat-N for cache, retry, streaming, interruption, rate-limit, concurrency, or other run-to-run-sensitive behavior.
   • warm-up + repeat-N when first-run cold-start effects could distort the result. Use these defaults unless the task clearly needs something else:
   • Quick screen of a repeat-sensitive question: repeat-3.
   • Decision-grade latency or release recommendation: warm-up + repeat-10.
   • Costly live cases: start at repeat-3, then expand only if the answer remains unclear. If it is genuinely unclear whether extra runs are worth the time or cost, ask the user before expanding the probe.
6. When the question is benchmark-like or comparative, run in phases. Start with a high-signal pilot matrix against a control, then expand only the surviving candidates or unresolved cases.
7. If the question is about a suspected regression or behavior change, add at least one known-good control case such as origin/main, the latest release, or the same request without the suspected option.
8. For comparative probes, define parity before execution. Record prompt or input shape, tool-choice setup, model-settings parity, state reuse rules, and any response-shape constraint that keeps the comparison fair. If materially different output length could bias the result, record usage or token notes too.
9. If the question asks whether one option has the same intelligence or quality as another, decide whether the matrix supports only example-pattern parity or a broader quality claim. For broader claims, add at least one harder or more open-ended case. Otherwise say explicitly that the result is limited to the covered patterns.
10. Plan state controls before execution when hidden state could affect the result. Record whether each case uses fresh or reused state, how cache reuse or cache busting is handled, what unique IDs isolate repeated runs, and how cleanup is verified.
11. If any live case will read environment variables, list the exact variable names and purpose for each case, then ask the user for approval before execution. Prefer request_user_input for this gate when it is available, with no auto-resolution and choices that grant or deny only this specific probe. Keep the approval ask short and include destination, read-only versus mutating or costly risk, exact variable names, and cleanup or rollback if relevant.
12. Build task-specific probe scripts in a temporary location. Keep the script small, observable, and easy to discard.
13. In openai-agents-python, make the runtime context explicit:

• Run Python probes from the repository root with uv run python when practical.
• Record the current commit, working directory, Python executable, and Python version.
• Avoid accidental imports from a different checkout or site-packages location. If you must deviate from uv run python, say exactly why and what interpreter or environment was used instead.

14. Present the complete probe proposal with the disclosures required above, including the exact command for each case or approved matrix, then ask the user for explicit approval and wait.
15. Execute only the approved matrix and capture evidence. Record request shape, setup, observation summary, unexpected or negative result, error details, timing, runtime context, approved environment-variable names, repeat counts, warm-up handling, variance when relevant, cleanup behavior, and for comparisons note what was held constant plus any response-shape or usage notes that affect interpretation.
16. Update the matrix with actual outcomes, not guesses.
17. Keep temporary artifacts until the final response is drafted. Then delete them unless the user asked to keep them or they are needed for follow-up. Benchmark and repeat-heavy probes often need follow-up, so keeping artifacts is normal when the result may be revisited. If deleted, retain and report a short run summary.
18. Report findings first, with unexpected or negative findings first. Then summarize how the validation was performed and which cases were covered.
19. If the probe isolates one clear defect, you may include a short implementation hypothesis or minimal repro direction. Do not expand into a larger next-step plan unless the user asked for it.