agentleFS
bordenetbordenet/superpowers-plus/skills/engineering/debug-conductor/skill.md

debug-conductor

Skill8 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

PREVIEW - Conductor-led bounded investigation for complex distributed system incidents. Serial or parallel branches. Produces incident packets. Persistence tooling not yet implemented.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Operator checkpoint: Before forking, present the rubric score, proposed investigator mix, and estimated budget to the user.

    line 88
  2. Very specific:

    When all investigators complete (or budget exhausted), dispatch evidence-adjudicator:

    line 129
  3. Very specific:

    Always: Update investigation-state with final verdict

    line 147

≈ “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

Debug Conductor

Research basis: Kim et al. (2025) — centralized orchestration contains errors to 4.4× vs 17.2× for independent agents. Optimal team: 3–4 investigators. Fork only when single-agent is insufficient.

When to Use

  • Complex incident crossing service boundaries
  • Debugging stalled after systematic-debugging + think-twice
  • Multiple plausible hypothesis domains (telephony, LLM, state, infra)
  • Production impact requiring faster resolution than serial investigation

When NOT to Use

  • Single service, clear error message → use systematic-debugging
  • First investigation attempt (always start serial)
  • Budget exhausted (>80% consumed — see fork-readiness-rubric.md)

Example Invocation

Investigate: payment failures across checkout and fulfillment services since 2pm UTC
Evidence: error logs, DB records for 3 failed transactions, user reports
Hypothesis domains: API gateway routing, payment provider responses, state persistence

The Conductor Protocol

Phase 1: Incident Triage

  1. Receive incident description from user or escalation from systematic-debugging
  2. Extract structured context:
    • Affected systems and services
    • Timeline (when detected, any mitigation in place)
    • Available evidence (logs, traces, metrics, user reports)
    • Recent changes (deployments, config, code)
  3. Classify hypothesis domains:
    • Timeline / trace gaps
    • Telephony call flow
    • LLM / prompt behavior
    • State consistency
    • Infrastructure / config / deployment
  4. Initialize incident packet in working context (schema: skills/_shared/incident-packet-schema.md; protocol-only — no persistent store)

Phase 2: Fork Decision

Apply the Fork-Readiness Rubric (see skills/_shared/fork-readiness-rubric.md).

ScoreDecision
< 6SERIAL — continue with systematic-debugging
≥ 6, anti-fork signal presentSERIAL — log why fork was blocked
≥ 6, no anti-fork signalsFORK — proceed to Phase 3

Record the rubric score and rationale in the incident packet.

Operator checkpoint: Before forking, present the rubric score, proposed investigator mix, and estimated budget to the user.

ResponseAction
Approve (yes, go, LGTM)Proceed to Phase 3
Redirect (change investigators, adjust hypotheses)Apply user's adjustments, re-present for approval
Reject (no, don't fork, stay serial)Fall back to serial systematic-debugging
Conditional ("yes but limit to 2 branches")Apply constraints, proceed
Explain more ("why these investigators?")Provide rationale, re-present; do NOT auto-proceed
Off-topic / unclearClarify once: "Should I proceed with forked investigation?" If still unclear → single-agent fallback
Echo (repeats the plan back)Treat as approval
No response / silenceStay serial (systematic-debugging); log that fork was available but not approved

Phase 3: Investigator Assignment (Fork Path)

  1. Select investigators based on classified domains (max 4):
    • Timeline & Trace Investigator — always included if trace data available
    • Domain-specific investigator(s) — telephony, LLM, state, infra
    • Reproduction & Experiment — only if hypothesis is testable
  2. Scope each mandate:
    • Specific hypothesis to investigate
    • Allowed tools (constrained to domain)
    • Token budget (25% of remaining per branch)
    • Wall-clock limit (5 minutes per branch)
    • Required output: both supporting AND disconfirming evidence
  3. Dispatch investigators as parallel sub-agents
    • Each investigator gets: incident context + scoped mandate + evidence schema
    • Investigators do NOT communicate with each other (centralized only)

Phase 4: Evidence Collection & Validation

As investigators return evidence:

  1. Validate — is the evidence properly structured? Does it include confidence?
  2. Detect duplicates — Jaccard similarity > 0.7 between branch evidence → merge
  3. Monitor budgets — kill branches exceeding limits
  4. Check confidence — kill branches with < 0.3 confidence after first evidence
  5. Update incident packet in working context (in-memory only; not persisted across sessions)

Phase 5: Adjudication

When all investigators complete (or budget exhausted), dispatch evidence-adjudicator:

  1. Pass all branch evidence packets to evidence-adjudicator
  2. Adjudicator builds reasoning tree, weighs evidence strength, detects contradictions
  3. Adjudicator produces RootCauseVerdict with confidence score and alternative causes
  4. Conductor receives verdict and proceeds to Phase 6

Ownership: The conductor orchestrates; evidence-adjudicator synthesizes. The conductor MUST NOT perform adjudication itself.

Phase 6: Resolution

  1. Record adjudicator verdict in incidentPacket.adjudication (in working context)
  2. Record final budget usage in incidentPacket.budget
  3. If confidence ≥ 0.8: Present root cause + recommended next steps
  4. If confidence 0.5–0.8: Present ranked hypotheses, recommend targeted experiments
  5. If confidence < 0.5: Escalate to user with what we know and what we don't
  6. Record resolution actions in incidentPacket.nextSteps
  7. Always: Invoke failure-autopsy for post-resolution learning
  8. Always: Update investigation-state with final verdict
  9. Always: Log to TODO ledger any deferred follow-ups

Bounded Forking Constraints

ConstraintValueAction at Limit
Max concurrent investigators4Queue additional; explain to user
Max total branches6Stop branching; dispatch evidence-adjudicator with current branches
Per-branch token budget25% of totalKill branch
Per-branch wall-clock5 minutesKill branch
Min confidence to continue0.3Kill branch
Duplicate thresholdJaccard > 0.7Merge branches

Failure Modes

FailureDetectionRecovery
All investigators find nothingAll branches < 0.3 confidenceEscalate to user; suggest new evidence sources
Investigators agree on wrong causeHigh confidence but contradicted by reproductionRequire reproduction before accepting verdict
Cost explosionBudget > 80% with no verdictStop forking; dispatch evidence-adjudicator with partial findings
Conductor bottleneckQueued evidence > 3 items unprocessedProcess evidence in batch; simplify validation
Circular investigationSame hypothesis re-investigatedTrack hypothesis IDs; reject duplicates
Adjudicator failureevidence-adjudicator times out or returns malformed verdictRetry once; if still failed, escalate with partial ranked evidence and mark adjudication as degraded

Companion Skills

  • systematic-debugging — serial investigation (always try first)
  • investigation-state — evidence persistence across sessions
  • think-twice — escalation signal (fork trigger)
  • adversarial-search — embedded in adjudicator Step 5b (disconfirmation pass)
  • failure-autopsy — post-resolution learning
  • thinking-orchestrator — hub router (routes here when fork-ready)

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.