debug-systematically
Skill1 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub
Finding the actual cause instead of the plausible one — probing real state, checking derived data, and fixing root causes rather than symptoms. Use when a fix does not work, when behaviour contradicts the code, when a test fails unexpectedly, or when tempted to guess at a cause instead of observing it.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- VelimirMueller/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- VelimirMueller/ai-development-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- linellazatin/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- cellrishi-code/claude-skills-atlastheir own version, first seen Oct 4, 2026
- Chrike/coding-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 4, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- VelimirMueller/ai-development-skills★ 7same name
- VelimirMueller/claude-skills★ 7same name
- cellrishi-code/claude-skills-atlas★ 6same name
- Chrike/coding-agent-skills★ 1same name
- linellazatin/skills★ 1same 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ralph-loopSkill
- safe-operationsSkill
- secrets-hygieneSkill
- token-harnessSkill
- verify-before-claimingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 21
When something "looks right" but behaves wrong, suspect what you cannot see: invisible characters, encoding, escaping, whitespace, line …
- Very specific: line 38
After redacting secrets from a record's text, they were still on disk — the search index built from the *pre-redaction* text was persisted …
- Distinctive: line 51
When a fix feels like it is compensating for something, it usually is.
- Distinctive: line 61
When a test fails, decide which side is wrong *before* changing either.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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
Debug Systematically
Look at the real bytes before theorising
A hook silently stopped parsing its input. The plausible causes were all wrong. One probe settled it:
console.log([...raw].slice(0, 8).map(c => c.charCodeAt(0)).join(','));
// 65279,123,34,112,... <- a UTF-8 BOMJSON.parse was throwing on a byte-order mark, and a catch was swallowing it
into a fallback. Two minutes of observation beat twenty of hypothesis.
When something "looks right" but behaves wrong, suspect what you cannot see: invisible characters, encoding, escaping, whitespace, line endings.
A silent catch is where bugs hide
try { return JSON.parse(read(p)); } catch { return {}; }That line destroyed a user's config. The failure had no symptom until much later, in a different place. Catch blocks that swallow errors convert a loud failure into a quiet corruption — the worst trade in debugging.
Log it, surface it, or refuse. Never silently substitute a default for an error.
Check derived state
After redacting secrets from a record's text, they were still on disk — the
search index built from the pre-redaction text was persisted alongside it.
The obvious field was fixed; the derived copy was not. Ask: what else was computed from this, cached from this, logged from this, or indexed from this?
Fix causes, not symptoms
A duplicate-detection check never fired. The symptomatic fix is to add a second
check. The actual cause was that JSON.stringify escapes quotes, so a substring
match against a quoted path could never succeed. The real fix was to stop
string-matching serialized data and compare a structural tag instead.
When a fix feels like it is compensating for something, it usually is.
Suspect your test before your code
Several failures here were wrong expectations, not wrong implementations:
- "delegation loses on a warm cache" — it does not; output price dominates
- "this prompt has a positive signal" — it did not
- "durability should be 7" — the mtime window was inflating it
When a test fails, decide which side is wrong before changing either. Never weaken an assertion to get green.
Reproduce in isolation
The installer's data-loss bug only appeared in a sandbox with a realistic pre-existing config. Unit tests all passed. If a bug will not reproduce, the harness is probably too clean — add the messy real-world condition.
When the measurement disagrees with the outcome
Establish which one to trust before acting. A score of 0/10 on work that was clearly done meant the metric was broken, not the work. A later score of 1/10 was correct and the earlier 7/10 had been the lie.
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.

