repro-first
Skill1 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub
MANDATORY first step for any bug report, error message, crash, traceback, or failing test. Load it before editing code to fix a bug. Reproduce the failure first and show it; if it does not fail, change nothing and say "Could not reproduce". After the fix, show the same reproduction passing.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- magia187/premium-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- xiaodan2048/repro-firsttheir own version, first seen Sep 15, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- magia187/premium-agent-skills★ 0same name
- xiaodan2048/repro-first★ 0same name
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 repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- no-guessingSkill
- prove-itSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Check the neighbors: Run the tests around the code you touched, so the fix did not break a sibling case.
- Distinctive: line 17
If an existing test now fails, your fix is wrong, or the report conflicts with that test.
- Distinctive: line 39
If the reproduction does not fail, do not change the code.
- Distinctive: line 48
If the user wants a best-guess fix anyway, label it unreproduced and explain what would confirm it.
- Distinctive: line 52
If the project has tests, turn the reproduction into a test that failed before the fix and passes after.
≈ “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
Repro first
A fix for a bug you never saw fail is a guess.
Steps
- Reproduce. Find a command, test, or request that shows the failure. Run it. Show the failing output.
- Locate the root cause. Trace from the failure to the line that is actually wrong. Before editing a shared function, find its other callers: the fix usually belongs where they all pass through, not in the one path the report mentions.
- Fix the cause, not the symptom. No
try/except: pass, no special case for the one input from the report, unless that really is the bug. - Re-run the same reproduction. Show it passing now.
- Check the neighbors. Run the tests around the code you touched, so the fix did not break a sibling case. If an existing test now fails, your fix is wrong, or the report conflicts with that test. Do not edit the test to match. Find a fix that passes both, or stop and ask which behavior is right.
Report format
Repro (before):
```
$ python -m app import data/broken.csv
KeyError: 'date'
```
Cause: `load_rows` assumed every CSV has a `date` header; exports from v1 call it `Date`.
Fix: normalize header case in `load_rows` (all 3 importers go through it).
Repro (after):
```
$ python -m app import data/broken.csv
Imported 1,204 rows.
```
Neighbors: `pytest tests/test_import.py` → 12 passed.When you cannot reproduce
If the reproduction does not fail, do not change the code. Your answer starts with Could not reproduce.
No defensive edits "just in case": errors="replace", a broad try/except, a fallback list of encodings, a retry. They hide the cause and turn a crash into silent bad data. Running the code after such an edit and seeing it work proves nothing; it worked before the edit too.
**Could not reproduce**: `import data/broken.csv` succeeds here (Python 3.12, macOS).
Likely differences: OS line endings, file encoding. Can you share the exact file or the full traceback?If the user wants a best-guess fix anyway, label it unreproduced and explain what would confirm it.
Write the repro down
If the project has tests, turn the reproduction into a test that failed before the fix and passes after. That is the receipt that keeps the bug fixed.
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.