agentleFS
Sign inStart free
prkash1704prkash1704/claude-skills/circuit-breaker/SKILL.md

circuit-breaker

Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Diagnose-before-thrash discipline that breaks debugging death-spirals. Trigger this the moment fixing starts going in circles: the same error keeps returning, two or more fix attempts have failed, the user says "still broken", "I've tried everything", "why isn't this working", or "stuck on this for ages", or you notice yourself proposing repeated edits to the same code without having confirmed the cause. Fire proactively, without being asked, whenever a bug is taking longer than it should. Supports intensity levels: lite, full (default), ultra. Once active, STAY active until the original symptom is confirmed gone -- do not drift back to guessing.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. jars-demo/jars-skills★ 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.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Stop thrashing. Find the cause before changing more.

    line 15
  2. Distinctive:

    Stop proposing changes. Run in order, out loud:

    line 27
  3. Distinctive:

    User wants a quick stab: If they explicitly want to try one thing, let them -- then re-arm.

    line 51
  4. Distinctive:

    Do the diagnostic work yourself -- run the tests, isolate the pieces, verify the assumptions.

    line 55
  5. Distinctive:

    Never treat "compiles" or "runs now" as "fixed." Confirm the original symptom is actually gone.

    line 57

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Circuit Breaker

Stop thrashing. Find the cause before changing more. The cheapest fix is a test, not another edit.

Activation & Persistence

  • Default level: full
  • Switch level: lite | full | ultra (a monitoring hook can escalate this automatically as failures pile up)
  • Enter when: same fix tried 2+ times and symptom persists - same error keeps returning - user signals stuckness - you're about to edit already-changed code without knowing why
  • Persist: stay in this mode every step until the original symptom is confirmed gone. "It compiles" / "it runs now" is NOT gone. If unsure whether it's resolved -- it's not resolved.
  • Exit: symptom verified fixed, or user says to drop it.

The Discipline (full)

Stop proposing changes. Run in order, out loud:

  1. Name the loop. Say it plainly: "Changed this a few times, still failing. Stopping to find the cause before changing more." Breaks the autopilot.
  2. List trusted-but-unchecked. The bug hides in the foundation you assumed was fine, not the code you keep editing. Spell out the unverified assumptions: input data, config, setup/calibration, environment, dependency versions, the part that "worked before." Pick the single one most likely wrong.
  3. Ask the user's hunch -- once. "If you had to bet, what's actually wrong?" Their gut is often right and under-used. Ask one time. Do not interrogate.
  4. Run the cheapest decisive test. The fastest check that confirms or kills the top suspect. Run it -- you have the tools -- before any more edits. A 10-minute test beats another hour of edits.
  5. Still unclear -> shrink it. Isolate the smallest reproducible piece. Change one variable at a time so each result means something.
  6. Then resume. Edit again -- but now you're testing a hypothesis, not guessing.

Intensity Levels

LevelBehavior
liteGentle flag. "Tried that twice -- want to step back and check assumptions before the next change?" Suggest, don't gate.
fullDefault. Stop, name the loop, run the discipline above before editing further.
ultraHard gate. Refuse further edits until one assumption is checked or one cheapest-test is run. Diagnose first, no exceptions.

❌ (3rd failed attempt) "Let me also try bumping the timeout and see." ✅ (3rd failed attempt) "Three changes, still failing. Stopping. We've trusted the calibration without ever checking it -- testing that first, before any more edits."

Don't Fire When

  1. First attempt. Normal trying isn't thrashing. Never gate the first try.
  2. Genuinely new problem. A fresh, different bug is not a loop.
  3. User wants a quick stab. If they explicitly want to try one thing, let them -- then re-arm.

Boundaries

  • Do the diagnostic work yourself -- run the tests, isolate the pieces, verify the assumptions. Don't hand the user a wall of questions. One hunch question, maximum.
  • Guide toward the cause; the user owns the fix. Offer the angle, not a pile of answers.
  • Never treat "compiles" or "runs now" as "fixed." Confirm the original symptom is actually gone.

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.

Check your setup, free