agentleFS
aradmanamnaoonaradmanamnaoon/vibe-coding-skills/skills/debugging/reproduction-builder/SKILL.md

reproduction-builder

Skill0 starsChanged 18 days agoMITView on GitHub

Create the smallest reliable reproducer for a reported software failure before attempting a fix. Use when a bug is intermittent, environment-sensitive, or not covered by a failing test.

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:

    Read applicable repository instructions before edits.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Write down expected behavior, observed behavior, and the minimum trigger conditions separately.

    line 32
  3. Distinctive:

    Start from the nearest existing test or executable path rather than a new harness.

    line 33
  4. Distinctive:

    Remove unrelated inputs and dependencies while checking that the failure remains.

    line 34
  5. Distinctive:

    Run it at least twice or across the relevant boundary to confirm reliability.

    line 37
  6. Distinctive:

    Only then hand off to diagnosis or fixing.

    line 38
  7. Distinctive:

    Test framework, temporary fixtures, logs, environment inspection.

    line 42
  8. Distinctive:

    Use synthetic or already-authorized test data.

    line 46
  9. Distinctive:

    If the bug cannot be reproduced, provide a capture plan for the missing logs/state rather than fabricating a local failure.

    line 63

≈ “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

Purpose

Convert an ambiguous bug report into an executable failing case with controlled inputs.

When to activate

A defect is reported without a stable failing test or command.

When not to activate

The task is purely explanatory or the existing test already reproduces the failure deterministically.

Preconditions

  • Read applicable repository instructions before edits.
  • Preserve unrelated working-tree changes and establish a baseline when the workflow can modify code.
  • Identify which tools and environments are actually available; do not claim unavailable checks ran.

Required inputs

  • Bug report and environment details
  • Candidate entry point
  • Relevant data/configuration

Workflow

  1. Write down expected behavior, observed behavior, and the minimum trigger conditions separately.
  2. Start from the nearest existing test or executable path rather than a new harness.
  3. Remove unrelated inputs and dependencies while checking that the failure remains.
  4. Control random seeds, time, network, filesystem, locale, and concurrency where they affect determinism.
  5. Turn the minimized case into a test/fixture when appropriate.
  6. Run it at least twice or across the relevant boundary to confirm reliability.
  7. Only then hand off to diagnosis or fixing.

Relevant tools

Test framework, temporary fixtures, logs, environment inspection.

Safety restrictions

Use synthetic or already-authorized test data; never copy production secrets or personal data into a fixture.

Validation

  • The reproducer fails before the fix with the reported symptom.
  • Unrelated setup has been removed without losing the failure.
  • Known nondeterministic dependencies are controlled or explicitly documented.

Expected output

  • Minimal reproduction command/test
  • Required fixture/input
  • Expected and observed result
  • Uncontrolled environmental factors

Failure handling

If the bug cannot be reproduced, provide a capture plan for the missing logs/state rather than fabricating a local failure.

Completion criteria

The skill is complete only when every applicable validation item above has observed evidence or is explicitly marked not executed with the concrete blocker. Do not replace missing evidence with confidence language.

Research mapping

This skill was selected from research problems: P012. See research/vibe-coding-problems.md and research/problem-evidence.csv in the Vibe Coding Skills repository.

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.