agentleFS
Sign inStart free
aicodekingaicodeking/deepseek-stack/skills/ds-unstick/SKILL.md

ds-unstick

Skill80 starsChanged 15 days agoMITView on GitHub

Break out of a repeating failure: name the assumption behind all the failed fixes, test it directly, list three other approaches, pick one, and restart clean if needed. Use when the same error or wrong behavior comes back after two fix attempts, or when you notice you are retrying small variations. Invoke as /ds-unstick.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    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:

    When two fixes fail the same way, the problem is usually a wrong belief, not a wrong edit.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Stop editing. Do not try a third variation of the same fix.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Write down each failed attempt in one line: what you changed and what happened.

    line 13
  4. Distinctive:

    Write the assumption that all of those attempts shared.

    line 14
  5. Distinctive:

    If the assumption is false, you have found the real problem.

    line 16
  6. Distinctive:

    If the assumption holds, list 3 different approaches.

    line 17
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not repeat a fix that has already failed, even with small changes.

    line 30
  8. Distinctive:

    Keep the failed-attempt list, because it is the most useful part of the report.

    line 32
  9. Distinctive:

    Use a clean state before a new approach, so that old edits cannot hide the result.

    line 33

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

ds-unstick

When two fixes fail the same way, the problem is usually a wrong belief, not a wrong edit. Find that belief and test it.

Steps

  1. Stop editing. Do not try a third variation of the same fix.
  2. Write down each failed attempt in one line: what you changed and what happened. Include the exact error text.
  3. Write the assumption that all of those attempts shared. Typical examples: "this file is the one that runs", "the config is loaded", "the function receives a string", "the cache is cleared", "the error comes from my code". Name one, in one sentence.
  4. Test that assumption directly with the cheapest probe that gives a yes or no answer: a print statement, a log line, a which or --version, a grep for the real call site, a minimal script, or a read of the docs for the exact version installed. Paste the result.
  5. If the assumption is false, you have found the real problem. Plan the fix from the new fact.
  6. If the assumption holds, list 3 different approaches. "Different" means another mechanism, library, layer or data path, not a tweak of the same edit. Give each approach one line on cost and risk.
  7. Pick one approach and say why in one sentence.
  8. Restart from a clean state if the failed attempts left debris: revert them with git (git stash or git checkout -- <files>), then apply only the chosen approach.
  9. Record the false assumption or the chosen approach in PROGRESS.md (see ds-context-reset) so a later session does not repeat the attempts.
  10. Return to ds-verify-loop with the new approach.

Stop when

  • The probe in step 4 explains the failure, or the new approach passes its check.
  • Two rounds of this skill have failed. Stop and report to the user: the attempts, the assumptions you tested, and the evidence. Ask for direction.

Rules

  • Do not repeat a fix that has already failed, even with small changes.
  • Evidence beats reasoning. If a probe takes a minute, run it.
  • Keep the failed-attempt list, because it is the most useful part of the report.
  • Use a clean state before a new approach, so that old edits cannot hide the result.

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.

Check your setup, free