agentleFS
doraemonkeysdoraemonkeys/claude-code-debug-mode/debug-mode/SKILL.md

debug-mode

Skill120 starsChanged 19 days agoMITView on GitHub

Interactive debugging mode that generates hypotheses, instruments code with runtime logs, and iteratively fixes bugs via autonomous reproduce-analyze loops, with human help only as a fallback. Only for hard-to-diagnose bugs; in those cases, remind the user that debug-mode is available, and never proactively activate this skill.

8 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

14 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 10

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask the user (if not already provided): expected vs actual behavior, reproduction steps, error messages.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Read the relevant source code.

    line 16
  3. Very specific:

    Write to {project_root}/.agents/debug.log using an absolute path by default.

    line 38
  4. Very specific:

    Before each reproduction: create .agents/ if needed.

    line 42
  5. Distinctive:

    Restricted/remote/mobile runtimes: If the code runs on mobile, embedded, or remote environments that cannot write to the project root, …

    line 48
  6. Distinctive:

    Intermittent bugs: If the bug cannot be triggered immediately, keep instrumentation in place and let the user report back with logs …

    line 49
  7. Distinctive:

    ALL instrumentation MUST be wrapped in region blocks for clean removal:

    line 53
  8. Very specific:

    NEVER use console.log、print or any stdout/stderr output: All debug output MUST go to debug.log — server-side via file-append, …

    line 68
  9. Distinctive:

    After instrumenting, reproduce the bug yourself when the environment allows (run the failing command, tests, or endpoint).

    line 73
  10. Distinctive:

    When the bug has been reproduced (by you or the user):

    line 77
  11. Distinctive:

    If inconclusive: new hypotheses → more instrumentation → archive & reset log → reproduce again yourself.

    line 93
  12. Distinctive:

    Write a fix. Keep debug instrumentation in place.

    line 97
  13. Very specific:

    If fixed: Remove all #region DEBUG blocks and contents (use Grep to find them), delete all .agents/debug*.log files (including archived …

    line 103
  14. Distinctive:

    If NOT fixed: Read the new logs; ask the user what they observed only if they were the one who reproduced.

    line 105

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Debug Mode

You are in Debug Mode — a hypothesis-driven debugging workflow. Do NOT jump to fixes. Follow each phase in order.


Phase 1: Understand the Bug

Ask the user (if not already provided): expected vs actual behavior, reproduction steps, error messages.

Read the relevant source code. Understand the call chain and data flow.

Phase 2: Generate Hypotheses

Generate testable hypotheses as a numbered list:

Based on my analysis, here are my hypotheses:

1. **[Title]** — [What might be wrong and why]
2. **[Title]** — [Explanation]
3. **[Title]** — [Explanation]

Include both obvious and non-obvious causes (race conditions, off-by-one, stale closures, type coercion, etc.).

Manual reproduction fatigues users—especially after 3+ rounds without finding the root cause. Include sufficiently detailed and reasonable debug information upfront to minimize reproduction cycles.

Phase 3: Instrument the Code

Log file & Evidence Collection

Write to {project_root}/.agents/debug.log using an absolute path by default.

project_root = hardcoded constant string inferred from context (file paths in the conversation). PROHIBITED: import.meta.dir, __dirname, process.cwd(), Deno.cwd(), path.resolve() or any runtime detection. Exception: remote/CI environments or non-writable local filesystem — use /tmp/.agents/debug.log instead.

Before each reproduction: create .agents/ if needed. If .agents/debug.log exists and is non-empty, archive it first (rename to debug-1.log, debug-2.log, etc., incrementing sequentially) before resetting debug.log to empty, preserving historical logs.

Server-side: file-append API (fs.appendFileSync, open("a"), etc.). Browser-side: fetch POST to a debug API route. Must work in all environments (dev/release).

Adapt for non-standard environments & intermittent bugs (Evidence over Ritual):

  • Restricted/remote/mobile runtimes: If the code runs on mobile, embedded, or remote environments that cannot write to the project root, adapt the log destination (e.g. device storage, remote endpoint, or memory buffer) and ask the user to provide/paste the logs.
  • Intermittent bugs: If the bug cannot be triggered immediately, keep instrumentation in place and let the user report back with logs whenever the issue occurs.

Region markers

ALL instrumentation MUST be wrapped in region blocks for clean removal:

// #region DEBUG       (JS/TS/Java/C#/Go/Rust/C/C++)
# #region DEBUG        (Python/Ruby/Shell/YAML)
<!-- #region DEBUG --> (HTML/Vue/Svelte)
-- #region DEBUG       (Lua)

...instrumentation...

// #endregion DEBUG    (matching closer)

Logging rules

  • NEVER use console.log、print or any stdout/stderr output. All debug output MUST go to debug.log — server-side via file-append, browser-side via fetch to a debug API endpoint.
  • Log messages include hypothesis number: [DEBUG H1], [DEBUG H2], etc.
  • Log variable states, execution paths, timing, decision points
  • Be minimal — only what's needed to confirm/rule out each hypothesis

After instrumenting, reproduce the bug yourself when the environment allows (run the failing command, tests, or endpoint). Only if you cannot reproduce it, tell the user how to reproduce, then STOP and wait.

Phase 4: Analyze Logs & Diagnose

When the bug has been reproduced (by you or the user):

  1. Check log file size first (e.g. wc -l or ls -lh). If the log is large, use tail or grep "[DEBUG H" to extract only the relevant lines instead of reading the entire file — avoid flooding the context window.
  2. Map logs to hypotheses — determine which are confirmed vs ruled out
  3. Present diagnosis with evidence:
## Diagnosis

**Root cause**: [Explanation backed by log evidence]

Evidence:
- [H1] Ruled out — [why]
- [H2] Confirmed — [log evidence]

If inconclusive: new hypotheses → more instrumentation → archive & reset log → reproduce again yourself; ask the user only when you cannot.

Phase 5: Generate a Fix

Write a fix. Keep debug instrumentation in place.

Archive and reset .agents/debug.log, then reproduce again yourself to verify the fix. If you cannot reproduce it yourself, ask the user to verify, then STOP and wait.

Phase 6: Verify & Clean Up

If fixed: Remove all #region DEBUG blocks and contents (use Grep to find them), delete all .agents/debug*.log files (including archived logs), summarize.

If NOT fixed: Read the new logs; ask the user what they observed only if they were the one who reproduced. Return to Phase 2 and iterate.


Rules

  • Never skip phases. Instrument and verify even if you think you know the answer.
  • Never remove instrumentation until the fix is verified (by you, or by the user when you cannot reproduce it yourself).
  • Never use console.log、print etc. Route all debug output to {project_root}/.agents/debug.log (or adapt the transport if runtime constraints require it).
  • Always archive existing logs and reset debug.log before each reproduction.
  • Always wrap instrumentation in #region DEBUG blocks.

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.