agentleFS
griffinhillygriffinhilly/claude-code-synthesis/skills/debug/SKILL.md

debug

Skill67 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Structured debugging with mandatory evidence gathering before any fix attempt. 4-phase protocol (Observe → Hypothesize → Reproduce → Fix) with hard gates between phases.

192 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use add-discord, add-slack and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • MicrosoftSkill

    add-discord

    Add Discord bot channel integration via Chat SDK.

    Also in 11 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    add-slack

    Add Slack channel integration via Chat SDK.

    Also in 11 projects that use this

  • +10 more from microsoft

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

14 rules. 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 175 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 13

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If no arguments, ask: "What's broken?

    line 17
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not hypothesize yet. Collect data:

    line 27
  3. Distinctive:

    Reproduce: Run the failing operation.

    line 30
  4. Distinctive:

    If you catch yourself thinking any of these, you skipped Phase 1:

    line 46
  5. Distinctive:

    Prefer hypotheses that explain ALL observed symptoms over those explaining only one

    line 60
  6. Distinctive:

    If the failure is at a layer boundary (data passes between stages), check both the producer and consumer

    line 61
  7. Distinctive:

    Test hypotheses one at a time, cheapest first:

    line 67
  8. Distinctive:

    If hypothesis is confirmed → proceed to Phase 4.

    line 76
  9. Distinctive:

    If hypothesis is ruled out → test the next one.

    line 77
  10. Distinctive:

    If all hypotheses ruled out → return to Phase 1 with new evidence from the tests.

    line 78
  11. Distinctive:

    Update MEMORY.md: if the gotcha is non-obvious or likely to recur.

    line 85
  12. Distinctive:

    Verify the fix: Run the reproduction from Phase 3.

    line 86
  13. Distinctive:

    If Phase 4 has been attempted 3 times and the bug persists, STOP.

    line 90
  14. Very specific:

    Run /verify on the affected output to catch any secondary effects.

    line 96

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 175 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

Structured Debugging

Systematic root-cause investigation. The goal is to find the actual cause before attempting any fix.

Input

Bug to investigate: $ARGUMENTS

If no arguments, ask: "What's broken? Describe the symptom — what you expected vs what happened."

The Rule

No fix attempt before Phase 1 evidence is written down. Fixing without evidence is guessing.

Phase 1: OBSERVE — Gather Evidence

Gate: Cannot proceed to Phase 2 without a written evidence summary.

Do not hypothesize yet. Collect data:

  1. Read the error. Full message, stack trace, exit code. Not a summary — the actual text.
  2. Reproduce. Run the failing operation. Confirm it fails consistently. Note exact conditions.
  3. Inspect each layer. For data pipelines, use ~/.claude/guides/pipeline-diagnostic.md — walk stages in order, stop at the first stage showing incorrect data. For code bugs, trace the call path from entry point to failure.
  4. Check recent changes. What changed since it last worked? git log, git diff, recent session-search results.
  5. Record the evidence:
EVIDENCE SUMMARY — [bug description]
Error: [exact message]
Reproduced: [yes/no, conditions]
First failing layer: [stage name]
Data at failure point: [actual values]
Recent changes: [what changed]

Red Flags (return to Phase 1)

If you catch yourself thinking any of these, you skipped Phase 1:

  • "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
  • "Just try changing X and see if it works"
  • "It's probably X, let me fix that"
  • "I don't fully understand but this might work"
  • Proposing solutions before inspecting data at the failure point

Phase 2: HYPOTHESIZE — Candidate Causes

Gate: Cannot proceed to Phase 3 without 3+ ranked hypotheses.

Generate at least 3 candidate root causes:

  • Rank by likelihood given the evidence
  • For each, state what evidence would confirm or rule it out
  • Prefer hypotheses that explain ALL observed symptoms over those explaining only one
  • If the failure is at a layer boundary (data passes between stages), check both the producer and consumer

Phase 3: REPRODUCE — Prove the Cause

Gate: Cannot proceed to Phase 4 without a confirmed root cause.

Test hypotheses one at a time, cheapest first:

Bug typeReproduction method
Data bugQuery that shows bad data at the identified stage
Logic bugMinimal script or test that triggers the wrong behavior
Pipeline bugRun the failing stage in isolation with known-good input
Integration bugTrace the exact request/response at the boundary

If hypothesis is confirmed → proceed to Phase 4. If hypothesis is ruled out → test the next one. If all hypotheses ruled out → return to Phase 1 with new evidence from the tests.

Phase 4: FIX — Confirmed Root Cause Only

  1. Fix the confirmed cause. Nothing else. No "while I'm here" changes.
  2. Write a test that would have caught this bug.
  3. Check for siblings. Grep for the same pattern elsewhere in the codebase. Are there other instances of the same mistake?
  4. Update MEMORY.md if the gotcha is non-obvious or likely to recur.
  5. Verify the fix. Run the reproduction from Phase 3. Does it pass now? Do other tests still pass?

Three-Fix Escalation

If Phase 4 has been attempted 3 times and the bug persists, STOP. Don't try a fourth fix. The approach or architecture is wrong. Escalate to the user:

"This has survived 3 fix attempts. The root cause may be architectural, not local. Here's what I've tried and why each failed: [summary]. I recommend reconsidering [specific aspect]."

After Fixing

Run /verify on the affected output to catch any secondary effects. Then suggest /learn gotcha to capture the lesson if it's reusable across projects.

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.