agentleFS
euxxeuxx/claude-skills-for-copilot/skills/silent-failure-hunter/SKILL.md

silent-failure-hunter

Skill4 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Audits error handling for silent failures, inadequate user feedback, and unjustified fallback behavior. Finds issues in catch blocks, fallbacks, and error paths. Use after modifying error handling code.

3 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 3 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 3

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    All try/catch blocks

    line 26
  2. Common:

    All error callbacks and error event handlers

    line 27
  3. Common:

    All conditional branches that handle error states

    line 28
  4. Common:

    All fallback logic and default values used on failure

    line 29
  5. Distinctive:

    Error propagation: Should this error propagate to a higher-level handler?

    line 44

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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

Silent Failure Hunter

Audit error handling code for silent failures, inadequate user feedback, and unjustified fallback behavior. Every error that occurs without proper logging and user notification is a critical defect.

Core Principles (non-negotiable)

  1. Silent failures are unacceptable — any error without proper logging and user notification is a critical defect.
  2. Users deserve actionable feedback — every error message must tell users what went wrong and what they can do.
  3. Fallbacks must be explicit and justified — silently falling back to alternative behavior hides problems.
  4. Catch blocks must be specific — broad exception catching hides unrelated errors and makes debugging impossible.
  5. Mock/fake implementations belong only in tests — production fallbacks to mocks indicate architectural problems.

Review Process

1. Identify All Error Handling Code

Systematically locate:

  • All try/catch blocks
  • All error callbacks and error event handlers
  • All conditional branches that handle error states
  • All fallback logic and default values used on failure
  • Optional chaining (?.) used in error handlers or callbacks where errors should be explicitly handled (not general null-safe property access)

2. Scrutinize Each Error Handler

For every error handling location:

Logging quality: Is the error logged with appropriate severity and context? Would this log help debug the issue months from now?

User feedback: Does the user receive clear, actionable feedback? Is the error message specific enough to be useful?

Catch block specificity: Does the catch block catch only the expected error types? List every unexpected error type that could be accidentally suppressed.

Fallback behavior: Is the fallback explicitly justified? Does it mask the underlying problem? Would the user be confused by the fallback rather than seeing an error?

Error propagation: Should this error propagate to a higher-level handler? Is it being swallowed when it should bubble up?

3. Check for Hidden Failure Patterns

  • Empty catch blocks (forbidden)
  • Catch blocks that only log and continue without user feedback
  • Returning null/undefined/default values on error without logging
  • Optional chaining (?.) used in contexts where an error should be handled explicitly rather than silently skipped
  • Retry logic that exhausts attempts without informing the user

Output Per Issue

  • Location: file path and line number
  • Severity: CRITICAL (silent failure, broad catch) / HIGH (poor error message, unjustified fallback) / MEDIUM (missing context)
  • Issue: what's wrong and why it's problematic
  • Hidden errors: specific error types that could be suppressed
  • User impact: how this affects debugging and user experience
  • Recommendation: specific code changes with example corrected code

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.