exploring-ai-failures
Find where an AI/LLM application is failing in production and surface the failure patterns, working from real traces. Use when someone wants to understand what's going wrong with an AI feature, find and categorize failure modes, triage errors, or investigate quality issues (wrong answers, ignored instructions, hallucinations, tool misuse) — "what's failing in my agent", "surface error patterns", "why are the responses bad", "find the common failure modes", "what should I fix next". Covers scoping to one use case, finding failing traces by whichever signal fits the context (code errors, metric outliers, trace-type slices, manual review, existing-eval spikes, clustering), and reading them into a ranked failure taxonomy.
73
90%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Low
Low-risk findings.
1 low severity finding. Worth noting, but not necessarily harmful.
W011: Third-party content exposure detected (indirect prompt injection risk).
What this means
The skill exposes the agent to untrusted, user-generated content from public third-party sources, creating a risk of indirect prompt injection. This includes browsing arbitrary URLs, reading social media posts or forum comments, and analyzing content from unknown websites.
Why it was flagged
In SKILL.md Step 3 (“Read a batch”) the workflow uses `posthog:query-llm-trace` / trace listing to open real production traces (including user-authored inputs stored in trace events) and then “actually read the traces you selected.”
- Repository
- PostHog/posthog
- Commit
6fca5f8
- Audited
- Security analysis
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.