agentleFS
ack-solutionsack-solutions/claude-code-ai-skills/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

systematic-debugging

Skill1 starsChanged 44 days agoMITView on GitHub

Investigate bugs, regressions and flaky tests using reproduction and root-cause evidence. Use for why does this fail, diagnose this regression, or fix this bug. Diagnosis returns findings; requested fixes include verification. For general cleanup without a reported failure prefer code-quality.

190 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions 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.
  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-code-review

    中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-commit-conventions

    中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • obraSkill

    diagnosing-superpowers

    Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.

    Also in 20 projects that use this

  • mjunaidcaSkill

    building-chatgpt-apps

    Guides creation of ChatGPT Apps with interactive widgets using OpenAI Apps SDK and MCP servers. Use when building ChatGPT custom apps with visual UI components, embedded widgets, or rich interactive experiences. Covers widget architecture, MCP server setup with FastMCP, response metadata, and Developer Mode configuration. NOT when building standard MCP servers without widgets (use building-mcp-servers skill instead).

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • mjunaidcaSkill

    building-chat-interfaces

    Build AI chat interfaces with custom backends, authentication, and context injection. Use when integrating chat UI with AI agents, adding auth to chat, injecting user/page context, or implementing httpOnly cookie proxies. Covers ChatKitServer, useChatKit, and MCP auth patterns. NOT when building simple chatbots without persistence or custom agent integration.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +2 more from Leodorareluctant259
  • +5 more from mjunaidca

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    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:

    Read relevant project instructions and expected behaviour.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Follow the failing value or action across its actual boundaries: UI state, request, authorization, domain logic, persistence and …

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Add scoped diagnostics only when necessary.

    line 19
  4. Distinctive:

    Search for other consumers of the faulty shared rule.

    line 20
  5. Distinctive:

    When attempts do not explain the observations, revisit the hypothesis, reproduction or boundary assumptions.

    line 22
  6. Distinctive:

    Run the reproduction again and relevant checks.

    line 30

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 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

Systematic debugging

Find the cause of the reported failure and verify the requested correction. Use a process proportionate to the defect, not a mandatory ritual for every small edit.

Establish the failure

Read relevant project instructions and expected behaviour. Capture reproduction steps, inputs, environment, expected/actual result and useful error evidence. Inspect recent related changes if history exists. If the failure cannot be reproduced, distinguish observations from hypotheses and pursue the narrowest safe diagnostic step.

Trace the cause

  • Follow the failing value or action across its actual boundaries: UI state, request, authorization, domain logic, persistence and asynchronous work as applicable.
  • Compare with a working case and inspect assumptions at the first divergence.
  • Form a specific hypothesis, test one meaningful variable, and use the result to narrow the next step. Avoid accumulating speculative patches.
  • Add scoped diagnostics only when necessary. Redact credentials and personal data; do not dump the environment, tokens, request bodies or database rows indiscriminately.
  • Search for other consumers of the faulty shared rule. Report broader exposure without assuming permission for unrelated rewrites.

When attempts do not explain the observations, revisit the hypothesis, reproduction or boundary assumptions. State what evidence is missing; never claim certainty from a plausible-looking patch.

Correct and verify within scope

A request to explain or diagnose ends with the evidenced cause and proposed correction. A request to fix includes implementation and verification without an extra routine approval step.

Use the smallest coherent fix at the correct owner. Preserve relevant compatibility and avoid unrelated cleanup. Add a meaningful regression test where practical: it should fail for the original defect and pass with the correction, using a disposable environment. For timing/retry issues, exercise the relevant ordering or concurrent requests rather than only a sequential happy path.

Run the reproduction again and relevant checks. For UI failures, inspect the actual interaction when tools permit. Distinguish passed, failed and untested checks. A test that never reaches the faulty path is not verification.

Deliver

Explain the failure, root cause, affected scope, correction if made, and evidence. Link relevant files/tests and identify unresolved conditions. Remove temporary diagnostics introduced during the investigation.

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.