debug
Skill70 starsChanged 5 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior - requires root cause investigation before proposing fixes
191 other projects use a version of this, 8 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- patrickjaja/claude-desktop-extratheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- NVIDIA/Model-Optimizertheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- drosam/agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- shivasaini04/nanocrewtheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- markmhendrickson/neotomatheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- alexj11324/Mikkatheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use add-discord, add-slack 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.
MicrosoftSkilladd-discord
Add Discord bot channel integration via Chat SDK.
Also in 11 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkilladd-slack
Add Slack channel integration via Chat SDK.
Also in 11 projects that use this
- +10 more from microsoft
Other versions191 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 8
- jonathanmalkin/jules★ 6535% same
- Kanevry/session-orchestrator★ 5314% same
- ariadoss/superskills★ 1237% same
- Guild-Agents/guild★ 449% same
- nicodiansk/turbocharge★ 339% same
- nicodiansk/turboflow★ 339% same
- Pharaoh-so/pharaoh-mcp★ 226% same
- azmainadel/devloop-skills★ 137% same
Wrote their own version · 183
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 36ksame name
- gavrielc/nanoclaw★ 31ksame name
- nanocoai/nanoclaw★ 31ksame name
- qwibitai/nanoclaw★ 31ksame name
- openai/symphony★ 27ksame name
- FalkorDB/FalkorDB★ 11ksame name
- NVIDIA/Model-Optimizer★ 5.6ksame name
- NVIDIA/TensorRT-Model-Optimizer★ 5.6ksame name
173 more not listed
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.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- automagik-brandSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- verification-gateSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. 0 are common, 17 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 176 edited versions we read keep these.
17
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 12
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes.
- Distinctive: line 20
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
- Distinctive: line 24
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Distinctive: line 47
Don't skip past errors or warnings
- Distinctive: line 48
Read stack traces completely
- Distinctive: line 54
If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
- Distinctive: line 63
When system has multiple components (API → service → database):
- Distinctive: line 78
Keep tracing up until you find the source
- Distinctive: line 88
If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Distinctive: line 89
Don't skim - read every line
- Distinctive: line 104
Don't fix multiple things at once
- Distinctive: line 109
DON'T add more fixes on top
- Distinctive: line 115
MUST have before fixing
- Distinctive: line 124
No other tests broken?
- Distinctive: line 131
STOP attempting more fixes
- Distinctive: line 139
If you catch yourself thinking:
- Very specific: line 169
Use this skill BEFORE attempting fixes in /forge
- Distinctive: line 170
If debugging during QA, document findings for forge to fix
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 176 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
Systematic Debugging
Overview
Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes.
The Iron Law
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRSTIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
The Four Phases
Complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
- Read Error Messages Carefully
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
- Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
- Check Recent Changes
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
When system has multiple components (API → service → database):
# For EACH component boundary: # - Log what data enters component # - Log what data exits component # - Verify environment/config propagation # Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks # THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component- Trace Data Flow
- Where does bad value originate?
- What called this with bad value?
- Keep tracing up until you find the source
- Fix at source, not at symptom
Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
- Find Working Examples
- Locate similar working code in same codebase
- What works that's similar to what's broken?
- Compare Against References
- If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Don't skim - read every line
- Identify Differences
- What's different between working and broken?
- List every difference, however small
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
- Form Single Hypothesis
- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Be specific, not vague
- Test Minimally
- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
- One variable at a time
- Don't fix multiple things at once
- Verify Before Continuing
- Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
- Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
- DON'T add more fixes on top
Phase 4: Implementation
- Create Failing Test Case
- Simplest possible reproduction
- MUST have before fixing
- Implement Single Fix
- Address the root cause identified
- ONE change at a time
- No "while I'm here" improvements
- Verify Fix
- Test passes now?
- No other tests broken?
- Issue actually resolved?
Rule of 3: Question Architecture
If 3+ fixes have failed:
- STOP attempting more fixes
- Each fix revealing new problems = architectural issue
- Discuss with user before continuing
This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
If you catch yourself thinking:
- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
- "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too |
| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic is FASTER than thrashing |
| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right |
| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause |
| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem |
Quick Reference
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
| 1. Root Cause | Read errors, reproduce, check changes | Understand WHAT and WHY |
| 2. Pattern | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
| 3. Hypothesis | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
| 4. Implementation | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
Integration with Omni Workflow
- Use this skill BEFORE attempting fixes in
/forge - If debugging during QA, document findings for forge to fix
- For integration issues, use existing fixtures to create regression tests
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.

