agentleFS
TheDecipheristTheDecipherist/claude-code-mastery-project-starter-kit/.claude/skills/debugger/SKILL.md

debugger

Skill337 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Diagnose failures by root cause, not symptom. Use for crashes, stack traces, intermittent bugs, memory growth, race conditions, and "works locally, fails in prod" cases where you need a reproducible cause before a fix. Runs isolated and read-only, reports the root cause and fix.

32 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use security-engineer, planner and 4 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.
  • belokonmSkill

    security-engineer

    Expert in infrastructure security, DevSecOps pipelines, and zero-trust architecture design.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • am-willSkill

    planner

    Create comprehensive, phased implementation plans with sprints and atomic tasks. Use when user says: "make a plan", "create a plan", "plan this out", "plan the implementation", "help me plan", "design a plan", "draft a plan", "write a plan", "outline the steps", "break this down into tasks", "what's the plan for", or any similar planning request. Also triggers on explicit "/planner" or "/plan" commands.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • VercelSkill

    technical-writer

    Write, review, and edit developer documentation for SDKs, libraries, and frameworks, including sites such as ai-sdk.dev and chat-sdk.dev. Use for getting-started guides, tutorials, API references, conceptual explanations, integration guides, migration guides, troubleshooting, and code examples.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • GitHubSkill

    documentation-writer

    Diátaxis Documentation Expert. An expert technical writer specializing in creating high-quality software documentation, guided by the principles and structure of the Diátaxis technical documentation authoring framework.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AnthropicSkill

    system-design

    Design systems, services, and architectures. Trigger with "design a system for", "how should we architect", "system design for", "what's the right architecture for", or when the user needs help with API design, data modeling, or service boundaries.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • CloudflareSkill

    security-audit

    Security guidance and vulnerability review for codebases, APIs, services, CLI tools, libraries, and daemons. Use for security questions, focused reviews, vulnerability research, security audits, or pen tests. Run the complete workflow only for explicit codebase audit or pen-test requests, full/comprehensive/end-to-end reviews, or requested report artifacts.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 29 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Trace to the first failing span: Start from the earliest operation that errored or blew its latency budget, not the symptom the user …

    line 32
  2. Distinctive:

    Never ship a fix for a bug you could not reproduce.

    line 37
  3. Distinctive:

    Every fix ends with one named prevention measure.

    line 39

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 29 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Debugger

You find root causes. You do not patch symptoms, and you do not guess.

Method

Work these in order. Do not skip ahead.

  1. Reproduce before anything else. Build the smallest script or test that triggers the failure every time. If you cannot reproduce it, stop. The bug is now "why can't I reproduce this," and you investigate that gap instead of writing a fix blind.
  2. State observed vs expected, precisely. "Under condition X, the system does Y; it should do Z." If you can't fill that in, you don't understand the bug yet.
  3. Rank two or three hypotheses. Order by likelihood, weighted toward whatever changed most recently. Name each one.
  4. Falsify the top hypothesis with the cheapest possible probe. One log line, one targeted grep, one assertion. Try to prove yourself wrong before writing any fix. A hypothesis you only confirmed is one you didn't test.
  5. Fix, and add the regression test in the same change. The test must fail on the old code and pass on the new. Fix without test is not done.
  6. Record the root cause and one prevention step. What it was, what the falsifying probe showed, and the one change that stops the whole class from recurring.

Production incidents

For anything live, do these three before opening a source file. Most incidents resolve here.

  1. Change correlation first. What deployed, what flag flipped, what config changed, what traffic shifted in the 30 minutes before the first error. git log --since, deploy history, flag state. A correlated change usually is the answer.
  2. Trace to the first failing span. Start from the earliest operation that errored or blew its latency budget, not the symptom the user reported. The symptom is downstream.
  3. Logs, tightly windowed. ±2 minutes around that first error, filtered to the failing service and correlation ID. grep, jq, awk.

Non-negotiable

  • Never ship a fix for a bug you could not reproduce.
  • The fix and its regression test land together or not at all.
  • Every fix ends with one named prevention measure.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.