agentleFS
rikvanrielrikvanriel/code-hygiene/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

systematic-debugging

Skill2 starsChanged 56 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when debugging a failure — failing test, crash, broken behavior, or flake. Finds root cause before fixing.

190 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions 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.
  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-code-review

    中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-commit-conventions

    中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • obraSkill

    diagnosing-superpowers

    Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.

    Also in 20 projects that use this

  • mjunaidcaSkill

    building-chatgpt-apps

    Guides creation of ChatGPT Apps with interactive widgets using OpenAI Apps SDK and MCP servers. Use when building ChatGPT custom apps with visual UI components, embedded widgets, or rich interactive experiences. Covers widget architecture, MCP server setup with FastMCP, response metadata, and Developer Mode configuration. NOT when building standard MCP servers without widgets (use building-mcp-servers skill instead).

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • mjunaidcaSkill

    building-chat-interfaces

    Build AI chat interfaces with custom backends, authentication, and context injection. Use when integrating chat UI with AI agents, adding auth to chat, injecting user/page context, or implementing httpOnly cookie proxies. Covers ChatKitServer, useChatKit, and MCP auth patterns. NOT when building simple chatbots without persistence or custom agent integration.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +2 more from Leodorareluctant259
  • +5 more from mjunaidca

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 177 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:

    Don't reboot, don't retry loop suppression, don't blind retry.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    If cannot repro, document why + what evidence makes fix still justified (production artifact, invariant violation provable by code …

    line 32

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 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

Systematic Debugging — Conduct Before Fixing

Capability: produce fix where reviewer sees cause chain, not fix narrative.

Principle: Demand root cause before workaround

Don't reboot, don't retry loop suppression, don't blind retry. Demand cause. If unknown, TODO + collect evidence, not plausible fill.

Phase 0 — Understand

  • Who hits it, what breaks (observable failure), when: frequency, workload, recent change.
  • Collect artifacts: logs, dumps, repro command, version, config, bisect if available. Paste verbatim, not paraphrase.
  • Map ownership: which component owns resource, who serializes access, what synchronizes.

Phase 1 — Reproducible case

  • Minimal reproducible case that produces artifact (log line, metric, failing test, return code).
  • Steps: command + expected vs actual. Save file under test/ or attached.
  • If cannot repro, document why + what evidence makes fix still justified (production artifact, invariant violation provable by code inspection).

Verification:

./repro.sh 2>&1 | tee "$TMPDIR/repro.log"; grep -q "EXPECTED_FAILURE" "$TMPDIR/repro.log" && echo REPRO_OK

Phase 2 — Minimal fix + ownership analysis

  • One logical change — minimal obvious fix first.
  • Ownership transfer: list all concurrent deref/callback sites (complete callback, worker queue, timer, read path). Verify cancel/kill/unregister before free via search, not memory — then confirm earliest place leak/failure can occur removed.
  • Why not simpler? State explicitly. Helper extraction separate commit per change-splitting.
  • Lock/deadlock: table lock order, who takes what, direction, potential cycle — even if no deadlock, write why.

Phase 3 — Verify including non-interference + boundaries

  • Repro passes: artifact gone.
  • Non-interference: existing suite still passes — name suite, count.
  • Boundary: empty, full, overflow/underflow, concurrent re-entry, rollback — ±1 around edge that triggered.
  • Observability per step: log line, metric, health endpoint, artifact exists.
  • Failure notification: how future regression noticed? Test, assertion, log, metric.
  • What unblocks downstream, what stays out of scope non-goals with reason.

4Q gate on debugging plan

(a) What's wrong? Fixing symptom not cause, ownership misses concurrent deref, tight loop unbounded, stale handle, injected input, blind suppression? (b) Better way? Existing generic mechanism elsewhere in codebase already handles case — reuse? Different representation avoiding special case? State explicitly if none beats with tradeoff correctness/simplicity/cost. (c) Missing? Rollback plan, cleanup error path, who owns failure notification, boundary empty/full/concurrent/re-entry, what stays out of scope, evidence if cannot fully repro, what unblocks downstream. (d) Boundaries explicit? CONTRIBUTING found, ext dep version pinned, irreversible guarded, tests named as non-interference signal, scope positive: provides reproducible artifact + minimal fix + ownership table, not "not reboot".

Converged = one iteration no new finding across all 4. Trend shrinking keep going. Recurring same scale wrong altitude rescope to smaller fix or bigger ownership refactor.

Verification

git grep -n "callback\|complete\|queue_work\|mod_timer\|show(" -- <pattern> | head -n 50
make check && ./repro.sh && echo PASS
./scripts/check-hygiene.sh HEAD

Related

  • factual-integrity never invent, TODO, paste verbatim.
  • change-splitting splitting understand vs fix into separate PRs when large, each intermediate builds.
  • self-review-gate Gate1 (c) missing overlaps — this details per-debug specifics.
  • project-discovery Step0 upstream bug report template.

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.