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
- PeanutGT/NutsSkillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jskswamy/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Firzus/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- domengabrovsek/agent-configtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- domengabrovsek/claudetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- microsoft/veronatheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
MicrosoftSkilladd-discord
Add Discord bot channel integration via Chat SDK.
Also in 11 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkilladd-slack
Add Slack channel integration via Chat SDK.
Also in 11 projects that use this
- +10 more from microsoft
Other versions192 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 192
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 35ksame name
- gavrielc/nanoclaw★ 31ksame name
- nanocoai/nanoclaw★ 31ksame name
- qwibitai/nanoclaw★ 31ksame name
- openai/symphony★ 27ksame name
- FalkorDB/FalkorDB★ 10ksame name
- NVIDIA/TensorRT-Model-Optimizer★ 5.6ksame name
- NVIDIA/Model-Optimizer★ 5.6ksame name
182 more not listed
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 repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- autoresearchSkill
- brainstormSkill
- bug-huntSkill
- check-resolvableSkill
- compSkill
- dialectic-reviewSkill
- distillSkill
- finalizeSkill
- implementSkill
- learnSkill
- plan-taskSkill
- premortemSkill
- red-teamSkill
- researchSkill
- retroSkill
- reviewSkill
- rsbSkill
- sessionsSkill
- shipSkill
- socratesSkill
- tradeoffSkill
- verifySkill
- wrapupSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 17
If no arguments, ask: "What's broken?
- Distinctive: line 27
Do not hypothesize yet. Collect data:
- Distinctive: line 30
Reproduce: Run the failing operation.
- Distinctive: line 46
If you catch yourself thinking any of these, you skipped Phase 1:
- Distinctive: line 60
Prefer hypotheses that explain ALL observed symptoms over those explaining only one
- Distinctive: line 61
If the failure is at a layer boundary (data passes between stages), check both the producer and consumer
- Distinctive: line 67
Test hypotheses one at a time, cheapest first:
- Distinctive: line 76
If hypothesis is confirmed → proceed to Phase 4.
- Distinctive: line 77
If hypothesis is ruled out → test the next one.
- Distinctive: line 78
If all hypotheses ruled out → return to Phase 1 with new evidence from the tests.
- Distinctive: line 85
Update MEMORY.md: if the gotcha is non-obvious or likely to recur.
- Distinctive: line 86
Verify the fix: Run the reproduction from Phase 3.
- Distinctive: line 90
If Phase 4 has been attempted 3 times and the bug persists, STOP.
- Very specific: line 96
Run /verify on the affected output to catch any secondary effects.
“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.
Files
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:
- Read the error. Full message, stack trace, exit code. Not a summary — the actual text.
- Reproduce. Run the failing operation. Confirm it fails consistently. Note exact conditions.
- 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. - Check recent changes. What changed since it last worked?
git log,git diff, recent session-search results. - 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 type | Reproduction method |
| Data bug | Query that shows bad data at the identified stage |
| Logic bug | Minimal script or test that triggers the wrong behavior |
| Pipeline bug | Run the failing stage in isolation with known-good input |
| Integration bug | Trace 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
- Fix the confirmed cause. Nothing else. No "while I'm here" changes.
- Write a test that would have caught this bug.
- Check for siblings. Grep for the same pattern elsewhere in the codebase. Are there other instances of the same mistake?
- Update MEMORY.md if the gotcha is non-obvious or likely to recur.
- 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.
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.

