debug-investigator
Skill3 starsChanged 4 days agoMITView on GitHub
Find why a failure happens before proposing a fix. Use when the user asks to diagnose or debug a bug, failing test, build error, slow behavior, or unexpected result, or when an approved fix needs investigation. Diagnosis alone does not give permission to edit code.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Mathews-Tom/armorytheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- HanKyeon/han-kyeon_claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 1, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- Mathews-Tom/armory★ 340same name
- HanKyeon/han-kyeon_claude-skills★ 2same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- architecture-docsSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- implementation-plannerSkill
- thoughtful-coderSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 17
Check current behavior against accepted requirements.
- Distinctive: line 21
Follow data and calls through the affected modules to the returned result.
- Distinctive: line 29
Run the smallest check that separates it from other possible causes.
- Distinctive: line 35
If checks stop producing useful evidence, stop the investigation.
- Distinctive: line 48
Stop after the diagnosis unless coding is approved.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Debug investigator
Explain what failed, why it failed, and where the smallest fix belongs.
Keep the repository unchanged for diagnosis-only requests. Use existing tests, read-only inspection, or isolated temporary checks. Do not change production data or expose secrets. Add a tracked reproduction test only when the task allows it. An approved end-to-end fix can continue to coding after the cause is confirmed.
Step 1: Capture the failure
- Record expected and actual behavior, inputs, errors, and environment.
- Try the smallest reproduction. State whether the failure was reproduced.
- Check current behavior against accepted requirements. Do not assume a mocked flow or old document describes the real failure.
Step 2: Trace the cause
- Follow data and calls through the affected modules to the returned result.
- Find the first point where behavior differs from the requirement.
- Compare recent changes and a working flow when useful. Do not copy unrelated business rules from it.
- For async or stored state, inspect relevant event order, cancellation, concurrent updates, restart, and logs. A success response alone does not prove the operation finished.
Step 3: Test an explanation
- State a possible cause and the observation that would disprove it.
- Run the smallest check that separates it from other possible causes.
- Record what the result confirms or rules out.
- Revise the explanation when evidence contradicts it. Do not make random edits or label a guess as confirmed.
For intermittent failures, collect evidence where the failure occurs. Do not replace diagnosis with blanket retries or larger timeouts.
If checks stop producing useful evidence, stop the investigation. Report what was ruled out and which observation or access is missing. Do not declare the design wrong after an arbitrary number of attempts.
Step 4: Return the diagnosis
Report in plain language, following the "Plain writing" section in AGENTS.md. Lead with the cause in plain words. Then give the evidence:
- Expected and actual behavior, with reproduction steps when available.
- Confirmed cause and evidence: file locations, logs, or check results.
- Unconfirmed explanations separately.
- Affected callers or data, and the smallest place to fix the problem.
- A regression check and any broader checks the fix will need.
- Whether implementation is approved.
Stop after the diagnosis unless coding is approved.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

