debug
Skill4 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Discipline skill — systematic debugging process. Use when encountering any bug, debug issue, test failure, broken function, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
192 other projects use a version of this, 6 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- PeanutGT/NutsSkillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jskswamy/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Firzus/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- domengabrovsek/agent-configtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- domengabrovsek/claudetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- microsoft/veronatheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use add-discord, add-slack and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
MicrosoftSkilladd-discord
Add Discord bot channel integration via Chat SDK.
Also in 11 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkilladd-slack
Add Slack channel integration via Chat SDK.
Also in 11 projects that use this
- +10 more from microsoft
Other versions192 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 6
- jonathanmalkin/jules★ 6528% same
- ariadoss/superskills★ 1230% same
- nicodiansk/turbocharge★ 328% same
- nicodiansk/turboflow★ 328% same
- Pharaoh-so/pharaoh-mcp★ 237% same
- azmainadel/devloop-skills★ 130% same
Wrote their own version · 186
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 35ksame name
- gavrielc/nanoclaw★ 31ksame name
- nanocoai/nanoclaw★ 31ksame name
- qwibitai/nanoclaw★ 31ksame name
- openai/symphony★ 27ksame name
- FalkorDB/FalkorDB★ 10ksame name
- NVIDIA/TensorRT-Model-Optimizer★ 5.6ksame name
- NVIDIA/Model-Optimizer★ 5.6ksame name
176 more not listed
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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- build-featureSkill
- councilSkill
- create-prSkill
- guild-specializeSkill
- qa-cycleSkill
- re-specializeSkill
- tddSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 175 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
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 11
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes.
- Distinctive: line 41
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
- Distinctive: line 52
Don't skip past errors or warnings
- Distinctive: line 53
Read stack traces completely
- Distinctive: line 59
If not reproducible, gather more data — don't guess
- Distinctive: line 69
Verify environment/config propagation
- Distinctive: line 70
Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
- Distinctive: line 76
Keep tracing up until you find the source
- Distinctive: line 100
If < 3 attempts: return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 175 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Systematic Debugging
Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes.
Usage
/debug
Invoke this skill when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior. Follow the four phases in order.
When to use
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
The Iron Law
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRSTIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
The Four Phases
Complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
- Read Error Messages Carefully
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
- Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- If not reproducible, gather more data — don't guess
- Check Recent Changes
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
- Log what data enters each component boundary
- Log what data exits each component boundary
- Verify environment/config propagation
- Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
- THEN investigate that specific component
- Trace Data Flow
- Where does the bad value originate?
- What called this with the bad value?
- Keep tracing up until you find the source
- Fix at source, not at symptom
Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
- Find Working Examples — locate similar working code in the same codebase
- Compare Against References — read reference implementations COMPLETELY, don't skim
- Identify Differences — list every difference between working and broken, however small
- Understand Dependencies — what components, settings, environment does it need?
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
- Form Single Hypothesis — "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Test Minimally — smallest possible change, one variable at a time
- Verify — did it work? Yes = Phase 4. No = new hypothesis. DON'T stack fixes.
Phase 4: Implementation
- Create Failing Test Case — simplest possible reproduction, automated if possible. Use
/tddfor proper failing tests. - Implement Single Fix — address the root cause, ONE change at a time, no "while I'm here" improvements.
- Verify Fix — test passes? No other tests broken? Issue actually resolved? Use
/verifybefore claiming done.
If fix doesn't work:
- If < 3 attempts: return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
- If >= 3 attempts: STOP and question the architecture
3+ failed fixes indicate an architectural problem:
- Each fix reveals new coupling in different places
- Fixes require massive refactoring
- Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
- Discuss with the user before attempting more fixes
Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
- "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
| "I'll write test after confirming fix" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms is not understanding root cause. |
Quick Reference
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
| 1. Root Cause | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
| 2. Pattern | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
| 3. Hypothesis | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
| 4. Implementation | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
Related Skills
/tdd— TDD cycle for creating failing test cases in Phase 4/verify— verification before claiming the fix is complete
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.

