escalate-issuesTriage maintenance problems by severity, document findings with context, route to appropriate specialist agent or human, and create actionable issue reports. Use when a maintenance task encounters problems beyond automated cleanup: code that is unsafe to delete, configuration changes requiring domain expertise, breaking changes detected during cleanup, comp…
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
此技適用於維護任務遇超出自動清理之問題時：
勿用於有明修之簡單問題。僅於自動清理有險或不足時升級。
| 參數 | 類型 | 必要 | 說明 |
|---|---|---|---|
issue_description | string | 是 | 問題之明述 |
severity | enum | 是 | critical、high、medium、low |
context_files | array | 否 | 相關文件之路徑 |
specialist | string | 否 | 目標代理（若未指則自路由） |
blocking | boolean | 否 | 問題是否阻後續清理（預設：false） |
以標準嚴重度分類問題。
CRITICAL — 阻生產功能：
HIGH — 影響可維護性或開發生產力：
MEDIUM — 衛生小疵：
LOW — 風格不一：
嚴重度決策樹：
Does it break production? → CRITICAL
Does it block development? → HIGH
Does it impact code quality? → MEDIUM
Is it purely cosmetic? → LOW
預期： 問題以明嚴重度標分類
失敗時： 若不定，預設 HIGH 並升級予人再分類
為專家審捕所有相關語境。
問題報告模板：
# Issue: [Brief Title]
**Severity**: CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
**Discovered During**: [Skill name, e.g., clean-codebase]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Blocking**: Yes | No
## Description
Clear description of the problem in 2-3 sentences.
## Context
- **File(s)**: [List of affected files with line numbers]
- **Related**: [Related issues, commits, or previous attempts to fix]
- **Impact**: [What breaks if this isn't fixed, or what's wasted if not cleaned]
## Evidence
```language
# Code snippet or log excerpt showing the problem
```
## Attempted Fixes
- Tried X but failed because Y
- Considered Z but uncertain due to W
## Recommendation
- **Option 1**: [Safe conservative approach]
- **Option 2**: [More aggressive fix with risks]
- **Preferred**: [Which option to pursue and why]
## Specialist Routing
**Suggested Agent**: [agent-name]
**Reason**: [Why this specialist is appropriate]
## References
- [Link to related documentation]
- [Link to similar past issues]
預期： 問題以全語境文檔於 ESCALATION_REPORTS/issue_YYYYMMDD_HHMM.md
失敗時： （無——恒文檔之，縱不全）
配問題類型於合適之專家代理或人審。
路由表：
| 問題類型 | 專家 | 原因 |
|---|---|---|
| 安全漏洞 | security-analyst | 需安全專長 |
| GxP 合規之慮 | gxp-validator | 需監管知識 |
| 架構決定 | senior-software-developer | 設計模式專長 |
| 配置管理 | devops-engineer | 基礎設施知識 |
| 依賴衝突 | devops-engineer | 包管理專長 |
| 效能瓶頸 | senior-data-scientist | 優化知識 |
| 代碼風格爭 | code-reviewer | 風格指南之權 |
| 死代碼不定 | r-developer (or lang-specific) | 語言特定知識 |
| 測試破不明 | code-reviewer | 測試設計專長 |
| 文檔準確性 | senior-researcher | 需領域知識 |
| 授權相容 | auditor | 法律/合規專長 |
自動路由邏輯：
def route_issue(severity, issue_type):
if severity == "CRITICAL":
# Always escalate to human for critical issues
return "human"
if "security" in issue_type or "secret" in issue_type:
return "security-analyst"
if "gxp" in issue_type or "compliance" in issue_type:
return "gxp-validator"
if "architecture" in issue_type or "design" in issue_type:
return "senior-software-developer"
if "config" in issue_type or "deployment" in issue_type:
return "devops-engineer"
# Default: code-reviewer for general code issues
return "code-reviewer"
預期： 問題帶理由路至合適之專家
失敗時： 若無明專家，升級予人以手動路由
生合於目標對象（代理或人）之格式化報告。
予專家代理（MCP 工具之結構式格式）：
Emit one document: the routing header delimited by --- fences, then the report
body beneath it. The receiving tool parses the header keys, so those and the
agent ids stay in English.
type: escalation
severity: high
from_agent: janitor
to_agent: security-analyst
blocking: false
# Security Concern: Hardcoded API Key in Config
**File**: config/production.yml:45
**Pattern**: API_KEY="sk_live_abc123..."
**Request**: Please review if this is a valid secret or a placeholder.
If valid, recommend secure credential management strategy.
**Context**: Discovered during config cleanup sweep.
予人審（詳細 markdown）：
# Escalation Report: Uncertain Dead Code Removal
**From**: Janitor Agent
**Date**: 2026-02-16
**Severity**: HIGH
## Problem
File `src/legacy_payments.js` (450 lines) appears unused but contains
complex payment processing logic. Static analysis shows zero references,
but name suggests business-critical functionality.
## Why Escalated
- Uncertain if payment code is dynamically loaded at runtime
- Potential data loss risk if deleted incorrectly
- Requires domain knowledge to assess business impact
## Evidence
- No direct imports found
- Last modified 8 months ago
- Git history shows it was part of payment refactor
## Recommendation
Request human review before deletion. If confirmed dead:
1. Archive to archive/legacy/ directory
2. Document in ARCHIVE_LOG.md
3. Create ticket to verify payment flows still work
## Next Steps
Awaiting human confirmation before proceeding with cleanup.
預期： 報告已合於目標對象之格
失敗時： （無——若不定以通用 markdown 生報告）
維所有升級之日誌以防重複報告。
# Escalation Log
| ID | Date | Severity | Issue | Specialist | Status |
|----|------|----------|-------|-----------|--------|
| ESC-001 | 2026-02-16 | CRITICAL | Broken prod import | human | Resolved |
| ESC-002 | 2026-02-16 | HIGH | Dead payment code | human | Pending |
| ESC-003 | 2026-02-16 | MEDIUM | Config drift | devops-engineer | In Progress |
預期： ESCALATION_LOG.md 已以新條目更
失敗時： 若日誌不存，建之
若問題阻後續維護，則通知並暫停清理。
阻斷邏輯：
通知：
⚠️ MAINTENANCE BLOCKED ⚠️
Issue ESC-002 (HIGH severity) requires human review before proceeding.
**Affected Operation**: clean-codebase (Step 5: Remove Dead Code)
**Reason**: Uncertain if src/legacy_payments.js is truly dead
**Action Required**: Review ESCALATION_REPORTS/ESC-002_2026-02-16.md
Once resolved, re-run maintenance from Step 5.
預期： 維護已暫停；明通知已生
失敗時： 若通知機制不可得，於報告中文檔之
升級後：
過升級：為簡單問題升級浪專家之時。僅於真不定或有險時升。
欠升級：刪代碼「以觀測試是否過」而不升級可致生產中斷。
語境不足：無證據升級迫專家再查。含文件路徑、行號、錯誤訊息。
模糊之述：「配置有問題」不可行。具體：「配置漂移：dev 用 API v1，prod 用 v2」。
不追狀態：再升已審之問題。先查 ESCALATION_LOG.md。
密秘外露：升級報告中含實 API key 或密碼。遮敏感值。