core-debugging
Skill4 starsChanged 54 days agoMITView on GitHub
Diagnose a concrete failure and propose bounded repair tied to its requirement and fresh evidence.
In this repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- clean-implementationSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- core-analysisSkill
- core-documentationSkill
- core-planningSkill
- core-securitySkill
- delivery-pipelineSkill
- domain-backendSkill
- domain-engineeringSkill
- domain-frontendSkill
- domain-mobileSkill
- flowcairn-controlSkill
- implementation-lessonSkill
- project-contextSkill
- testingSkill
- workflow-diagnosisSkill
- workflow-planningSkill
- workflow-reuseSkill
- workflow-test-qualitySkill
- workflow-verificationSkill
The file
Files
Evidence-led debugging
Apply to a finding, failed check or unexpected behavior. Ordinary implementation without a failure does not need this diagnostic procedure.
- Identify the finding, requirement, expected/actual behavior and source fingerprint. Read supplied errors and traces. Separate a defect from missing verifier, environment failure or uncertain process termination.
- Trace the failing path from entry to symptom, then the incorrect value backward through callers to its producer. Compare with a working local path and the actual recent change; similar errors do not prove the same cause.
- State one falsifiable hypothesis: cause, supporting facts, smallest distinguishing check and the result that would contradict it. Inspect available evidence before proposing instrumentation. Commands need registered checks and Executor permission; never dump secrets or execute upstream helpers.
- Propose the smallest repair at the behavior owner with current source hashes and structured edits. Preserve access checks, immutable state and failure semantics. Do not mask symptoms with broad catch, arbitrary delay, disabled verification or unsafe fallback. Additional validation is useful only at a demonstrated bypass of the invariant.
- Link repair to the original criterion and necessary regression. Prefer an existing reproducible failing scenario; add tests only when allowed and useful. For timing failures, wait for the required condition with a bounded deadline; tests of debounce/timing itself need controlled time rather than generic polling.
Follow runtime repair budget/transitions, not a skill-owned retry loop. A contradicted hypothesis needs a new explanation, not stacked guesses. If evidence is insufficient, the budget is exhausted or attempts expose an architectural issue, return the unresolved finding and next needed evidence. Recover uncertain writes before retrying. Close findings only through fresh linked verification, never an old receipt or a claim.
Adapted from obra/superpowers systematic-debugging and tracing/waiting references for Flowcairn permissions and finite repair. Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent. MIT; sources/changes: PROVENANCE.
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.

