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.
In this repository129 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- guidance/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- guidance/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- blast-radius-checkSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- branch-flow-gateSkill
- branch-sync-gateSkill
- codebase-reconSkill
- codeowners-drift-auditSkill
- code-review-batterySkill
- cognitive-complexity-refactoringSkill
- debateSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- domain-buildSkill
- evidence-adjudicatorSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- external-cli-auditSkill
- feature-developmentSkill
- field-rename-verificationSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- git-branch-conventionsSkill
- gitlab-cliSkill
- hotfix-charterSkill
- implementation-trackerSkill
- incident-revert-reviewSkill
- infra-config-investigatorSkill
- investigation-stateSkill
- kernel-splitSkill
- llm-behavior-investigatorSkill
- llm-skill-reviewSkill
- merge-authorization-gateSkill
- micro-harsh-reviewSkill
- output-verificationSkill
- pre-commit-gateSkill
- progressive-code-review-gateSkill
- progressive-harsh-reviewSkill
- providing-code-reviewSkill
- pr-triage-gateSkill
- push-authorization-gateSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- reproduction-experiment-investigatorSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- requirements-validation-pmSkill
- requirements-validationSkill
- scope-tripwireSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- skills-hierarchy-tuningSkill
- sp-bughuntSkill
- state-consistency-investigatorSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- timeline-trace-investigatorSkill
- token-estimationSkill
- unified-commit-gateSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- using-superpowersSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Distinctive: line 88
Operator checkpoint: Before forking, present the rubric score, proposed investigator mix, and estimated budget to the user.
- Very specific: line 129
When all investigators complete (or budget exhausted), dispatch evidence-adjudicator:
- Very specific: line 147
Always: Update investigation-state with final verdict
≈ “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.
Files
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 persistenceThe Conductor Protocol
Phase 1: Incident Triage
- Receive incident description from user or escalation from
systematic-debugging - 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)
- Classify hypothesis domains:
- Timeline / trace gaps
- Telephony call flow
- LLM / prompt behavior
- State consistency
- Infrastructure / config / deployment
- 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).
| Score | Decision |
| < 6 | SERIAL — continue with systematic-debugging |
| ≥ 6, anti-fork signal present | SERIAL — log why fork was blocked |
| ≥ 6, no anti-fork signals | FORK — 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.
| Response | Action |
| 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 / unclear | Clarify once: "Should I proceed with forked investigation?" If still unclear → single-agent fallback |
| Echo (repeats the plan back) | Treat as approval |
| No response / silence | Stay serial (systematic-debugging); log that fork was available but not approved |
Phase 3: Investigator Assignment (Fork Path)
- 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
- 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
- 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:
- Validate — is the evidence properly structured? Does it include confidence?
- Detect duplicates — Jaccard similarity > 0.7 between branch evidence → merge
- Monitor budgets — kill branches exceeding limits
- Check confidence — kill branches with < 0.3 confidence after first evidence
- 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:
- Pass all branch evidence packets to
evidence-adjudicator - Adjudicator builds reasoning tree, weighs evidence strength, detects contradictions
- Adjudicator produces
RootCauseVerdictwith confidence score and alternative causes - Conductor receives verdict and proceeds to Phase 6
Ownership: The conductor orchestrates;
evidence-adjudicatorsynthesizes. The conductor MUST NOT perform adjudication itself.
Phase 6: Resolution
- Record adjudicator verdict in
incidentPacket.adjudication(in working context) - Record final budget usage in
incidentPacket.budget - If confidence ≥ 0.8: Present root cause + recommended next steps
- If confidence 0.5–0.8: Present ranked hypotheses, recommend targeted experiments
- If confidence < 0.5: Escalate to user with what we know and what we don't
- Record resolution actions in
incidentPacket.nextSteps - Always: Invoke
failure-autopsyfor post-resolution learning - Always: Update
investigation-statewith final verdict - Always: Log to TODO ledger any deferred follow-ups
Bounded Forking Constraints
| Constraint | Value | Action at Limit |
| Max concurrent investigators | 4 | Queue additional; explain to user |
| Max total branches | 6 | Stop branching; dispatch evidence-adjudicator with current branches |
| Per-branch token budget | 25% of total | Kill branch |
| Per-branch wall-clock | 5 minutes | Kill branch |
| Min confidence to continue | 0.3 | Kill branch |
| Duplicate threshold | Jaccard > 0.7 | Merge branches |
Failure Modes
| Failure | Detection | Recovery |
| All investigators find nothing | All branches < 0.3 confidence | Escalate to user; suggest new evidence sources |
| Investigators agree on wrong cause | High confidence but contradicted by reproduction | Require reproduction before accepting verdict |
| Cost explosion | Budget > 80% with no verdict | Stop forking; dispatch evidence-adjudicator with partial findings |
| Conductor bottleneck | Queued evidence > 3 items unprocessed | Process evidence in batch; simplify validation |
| Circular investigation | Same hypothesis re-investigated | Track hypothesis IDs; reject duplicates |
| Adjudicator failure | evidence-adjudicator times out or returns malformed verdict | Retry 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)
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.

