buildpad-debug
Skill1 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Investigate implementation failures using root-cause-first debugging. Use when an implementer is blocked, verification fails, or repeated remediation does not converge.
In this repository66 other files it gives its agents.
- add-ai-chatSkill
- add-buildpadSkill
- add-commentsSkill
- add-cronSkill
- add-external-oauthSkill
- add-filesSkill
- add-i18nSkill
- add-mcp-serverSkill
- add-microappSkill
- add-microfrontendSkill
- add-microfrontend-zonesSkill
- add-mobile-appSkill
- add-multitenancySkill
- add-usersSkill
- add-workflowsSkill
- amplify-env-varsSkill
- authentication-proxySkill
- buildpad-discoverySkill
- buildpad-implSkill
- buildpad-referenceSkill
- buildpad-reviewSkill
- buildpad-spec-batchSkill
- buildpad-spec-designSkill
- buildpad-spec-initSkill
- buildpad-spec-quickSkill
- buildpad-spec-requirementsSkill
- buildpad-spec-statusSkill
- buildpad-spec-tasksSkill
- buildpad-steering-customSkill
- buildpad-steeringSkill
- buildpad-validate-designSkill
- buildpad-validate-gapSkill
- buildpad-validate-implSkill
- buildpad-verify-completionSkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- create-api-routeSkill
- create-collectionSkill
- create-componentSkill
- create-cronSkill
- create-featureSkill
- create-form-builderSkill
- create-migrationSkill
- create-projectSkill
- create-rbacSkill
- create-serviceSkill
- create-testsSkill
- create-workflowSkill
- daas-platformSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- generate-docsSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- grant-module-accessSkill
- hooks-extensionsSkill
- idea-refineSkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- manage-scopeSkill
- migrate-to-engineSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 22
Do not use this skill to speculate about fixes before gathering evidence.
- Very specific: line 48
Use the language specified in spec.json.
- Distinctive: line 69
If web access is available, search:
- Very specific: line 101
Use NEXT_ACTION: RETRY_TASK when the issue is repo-fixable inside the current approved task plan.
- Very specific: line 112
Use NEXT_ACTION: BLOCK_TASK only when the current task should stop but the rest of the queue can still proceed safely.
- Very specific: line 114
Do not propose a brute-force code fix as a substitute for revising tasks.md or the approved plan.
- Distinctive: line 118
Do not propose a multi-fix shotgun plan.
- Very specific: line 122
Use NEXT_ACTION: STOP_FOR_HUMAN when the blocker genuinely requires:
- Distinctive: line 128
If the issue is fixable by repo changes inside the current task plan, do not escalate prematurely.
≈ “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
buildpad-debug
Overview
This skill is for fresh-context root cause investigation. It combines local evidence, runtime/config inspection, and external documentation or issue research when available. It is not a patch generator for guess-first debugging.
When to Use
- Implementer reports
BLOCKED - Reviewer rejection repeats after remediation
- Validation fails unexpectedly
- A task appears to conflict with runtime or platform reality
- The same failure survives more than one attempted fix
Do not use this skill to speculate about fixes before gathering evidence.
Inputs
Provide:
- Exact failure symptom or blocker statement
- Error messages, stack trace, and failing command output
- Current
git diffor summary of uncommitted failed changes - Task brief: what was being built
- Reviewer feedback, if the failure came from review rejection
- Relevant spec file paths (
requirements.md,design.md) - Relevant requirement/design section numbers
- Relevant
## Implementation Notes - Runtime or environment constraints already known
Outputs
Return:
ROOT_CAUSECATEGORYFIX_PLANVERIFICATIONNEXT_ACTION: RETRY_TASK | BLOCK_TASK | STOP_FOR_HUMANCONFIDENCE: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOWNOTES
Use the language specified in spec.json.
Method
1. Read the Error Carefully
Extract:
- Exact error text
- Stack trace or failure location
- The command that produced the failure
- Whether the failure is deterministic or intermittent
2. Inspect Local Runtime and Repository State
Inspect the repository for local evidence:
package.json,pyproject.toml,go.mod,Makefile,README*- Build config
tsconfigor equivalent language/runtime config- Runtime-specific config
- Dependency versions and scripts
- Relevant changed files from
git diff
3. Search the Web if Available
If web access is available, search:
- The exact error message
- The technology + symptom combination
- Official documentation
- Version-specific issue trackers or migration notes
Prefer:
- Official docs
- Official repos/issues
- Version-specific references
- Runtime-specific documentation
4. Classify the Root Cause
Use one category:
MISSING_DEPENDENCYRUNTIME_MISMATCHMODULE_FORMATNATIVE_ABICONFIG_GAPLOGIC_ERRORTASK_ORDERING_PROBLEMTASK_DECOMPOSITION_PROBLEMSPEC_CONFLICTEXTERNAL_DEPENDENCY
5. Determine the Smallest Safe Next Action
Decide whether the issue can be fixed inside this repo by:
- Editing files
- Adjusting configuration
- Adding or correcting dependencies
- Restructuring code
Use NEXT_ACTION: RETRY_TASK when the issue is repo-fixable inside the current approved task plan.
6. Determine Whether the Task Plan Is Still Valid
Decide whether the current approved task plan is still safe to execute as written.
Prefer NEXT_ACTION: STOP_FOR_HUMAN when:
- A missing prerequisite task should exist before this one
- The current task is ordered incorrectly relative to unfinished work
- The current task boundary is wrong and should be split or merged
- The task is too large or ambiguous to fix safely inside the current implementation loop
Use NEXT_ACTION: BLOCK_TASK only when the current task should stop but the rest of the queue can still proceed safely.
Do not propose a brute-force code fix as a substitute for revising tasks.md or the approved plan.
Critical Rule
Do not propose a multi-fix shotgun plan. Identify the root cause first, then produce the smallest plausible fix plan. If the true problem is a spec conflict or architecture problem, say so directly.
Stop / Escalate
Use NEXT_ACTION: STOP_FOR_HUMAN when the blocker genuinely requires:
- Human product/requirements decision
- External credentials or inaccessible services
- Hardware or unavailable external systems
- Re-scoping due to spec/platform conflict
If the issue is fixable by repo changes inside the current task plan, do not escalate prematurely.
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
| “This probably just needs a quick patch” | Patch-first debugging creates rework. |
| “Let’s try a few fixes” | Multi-fix guessing hides root cause. |
| “The spec is probably wrong, I’ll adapt it” | Spec conflicts must be surfaced explicitly. |
| “The docs search is optional” | For runtime/dependency issues, docs and version issues often contain the shortest path to root cause. |
Output Format
## Debug Report
- ROOT_CAUSE: <1-2 sentence root cause>
- CATEGORY: MISSING_DEPENDENCY | RUNTIME_MISMATCH | MODULE_FORMAT | NATIVE_ABI | CONFIG_GAP | LOGIC_ERROR | TASK_ORDERING_PROBLEM | TASK_DECOMPOSITION_PROBLEM | SPEC_CONFLICT | EXTERNAL_DEPENDENCY
- FIX_PLAN:
1. <specific repo-fixable action>
2. <specific repo-fixable action>
- VERIFICATION: <command(s) to confirm the fix>
- NEXT_ACTION: RETRY_TASK | BLOCK_TASK | STOP_FOR_HUMAN
- CONFIDENCE: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
- NOTES: <context the next implementer should know>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.

