ds-debug
Skill20 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub
Find the root cause of a failure with the scientific method — reproduce, isolate, fix, then prove it.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sungurerdim/dev-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 10, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- sungurerdim/dev-skills★ 1same 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 repository52 other files it gives its agents.
- ds-dev-skill-benchSkill
- ds-agent-reviewSkill
- ds-architecture-planSkill
- ds-arenaSkill
- ds-blast-radiusSkill
- ds-blueprintSkill
- ds-bug-reviewSkill
- ds-clarity-reviewSkill
- ds-code-quality-reviewSkill
- ds-comment-reviewSkill
- ds-data-modeSkill
- ds-data-reviewSkill
- ds-deslopSkill
- ds-doc-quality-reviewSkill
- ds-exploreSkill
- ds-git-modeSkill
- ds-go-reviewSkill
- ds-grill-meSkill
- ds-handoffSkill
- ds-howSkill
- ds-humanizeSkill
- ds-interaction-modeSkill
- ds-java-reviewSkill
- ds-notebook-reviewSkill
- ds-onboardingSkill
- ds-osvSkill
- ds-perf-planSkill
- ds-project-checkpointSkill
- ds-project-resumeSkill
- ds-python-reviewSkill
- ds-quality-gateSkill
- ds-reflectSkill
- ds-retroSkill
- ds-roadmapSkill
- ds-rust-reviewSkill
- ds-security-reviewSkill
- ds-semgrepSkill
- ds-shell-reviewSkill
- dsSkill
- ds-specSkill
- ds-step-modeSkill
- ds-tdd-modeSkill
- ds-test-modeSkill
- ds-test-quality-reviewSkill
- ds-tiger-style-modeSkill
- ds-tldtSkill
- ds-ts-reviewSkill
- ds-ui-modeSkill
- ds-ui-quality-reviewSkill
- ds-verify-thisSkill
- ds-zig-reviewSkill
- ds-zoom-outSkill
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 7
When invoked, debug a specific failure by investigation, not guesswork.
- Distinctive: line 13
Treat the argument as the failure to chase: a failing test, an error message, a stack trace, or a description of wrong behavior.
- Distinctive: line 26
Close the loop: Delete the instrumentation and throwaway harnesses (grep your prefix).
- Distinctive: line 35
Do your own narrowing — don't guess-and-check by polling the user step by step.
- Distinctive: line 37
Keep a short trail of what you've ruled out, so you (or a fresh agent) don't re-test it.
≈ “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
When invoked, debug a specific failure by investigation, not guesswork. The goal is the cause, not a symptom that happens to go quiet. Change one thing at a time and let evidence — not intuition — drive each step. End by proving the fix with /ds-verify-this.
This is the lightweight, stateless counterpart to confirmation: /ds-debug finds and fixes; /ds-verify-this proves the fix held.
Arguments
Treat the argument as the failure to chase: a failing test, an error message, a stack trace, or a description of wrong behavior. If no concrete symptom is given, ask for one — don't debug a vague "it's broken".
Process
- Build the feedback loop first. Before forming any theory, get a fast, repeatable pass/fail signal that goes red on the bug — this is the whole skill; everything after is mechanical. Reach for the cheapest loop that reproduces it: a failing test at the right seam, a
curl/CLI + fixture diff, a replayed trace, a throwaway harness, a bisection or old-vs-new differential run, a property/fuzz loop, a headless-browser script. No red-capable loop, no hypothesis.- Flaky or intermittent? Aim for a higher reproduction rate, not a clean repro — loop the trigger 100×, parallelize, add load, narrow the timing window. A 50%-flake is debuggable; 1% isn't — keep raising the rate.
- Can't build a loop at all? Stop and ask for what's missing: environment access, a captured artifact (HAR, log dump, core dump, timestamped recording), or permission for temporary instrumentation. Don't hypothesize without a loop.
- Capture the failing baseline — the exact observable: error text, wrong output, transcript. This is what "fixed" will be measured against.
- Form hypotheses, ranked by likelihood × cheapness to test. Each must carry a falsifiable prediction — if this is the cause, changing X makes the failure vanish (or Y makes it worse); a hypothesis with no prediction is a vibe — drop it. Write them down; then, once, you may show the ranked list to the user for a domain-knowledge re-rank ("we just deployed #3") — proceed without blocking if they're away.
- Test one hypothesis at a time with the cheapest probe that can disprove it — a breakpoint or REPL beats ten log lines; a bisect; a narrowed input. Instrument to learn, not to change code "to see if it helps" — and tag any debug logging with a unique prefix (
[DEBUG-a4f2]) so cleanup is a single grep. - Narrow to the root cause — the specific line or condition that produces the failure, and why. State it explicitly. "The error stopped" is not a root cause.
- Apply the minimal fix that addresses the cause. Surgical only — no drive-by refactors or unrelated cleanup (see
/ds-deslop). - Prove it. Re-run the repro: the failure is gone. Then hand to
/ds-verify-this "<the repro now passes / behavior X now holds>"for a baseline-vs-treatment record. - Close the loop. Delete the instrumentation and throwaway harnesses (grep your prefix). Record the winning hypothesis in the commit/PR so the next debugger inherits it, and ask "what would have prevented this?" — route an architectural answer to
/ds-architecture-plan.
Discipline
- One change at a time. Five changes that "work" teach you nothing and leave landmines.
- Reproduce before fixing; confirm by reproducing after. A fix you can't demonstrate isn't a fix.
- Find the cause, not a symptom. Silencing the error is not the same as resolving it.
- Evidence over intuition. When they conflict, instrument until one wins.
- Perf regression? Logs mislead — establish a baseline measurement (timing, profiler, query plan) first, then bisect. Measure, then fix.
- Do your own narrowing — don't guess-and-check by polling the user step by step. The one-shot hypothesis re-rank (step 3) is the single allowed checkpoint, not a running dialogue.
- On a dead end, widen the repro or question an assumption you skipped; don't keep poking the same spot.
- Keep a short trail of what you've ruled out, so you (or a fresh agent) don't re-test it.
Output
- Root cause — stated plainly, anchored to
file:line, with why it fails. - Fix — what changed and how it addresses the cause, not the symptom.
- Evidence — the before/after, and the
/ds-verify-thisclaim that locks it in. - If unresolved — the ranked hypotheses tested, what each ruled out, and the next probe to run.
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.

