agentleFS
zerniezernie/vigiles/skills/debug-my-harness/SKILL.md

debug-my-harness

Skill15 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Diagnose why an agent harness misbehaved by reading the local flight-recorder ledger (.vigiles/runs.jsonl) — which skills fired or got hijacked, which hooks blocked or wrongly allowed, which subagent tool-contract violations happened, and how a skill's trigger rate moved. Use when asked why a skill stopped firing, why a hook didn't block, why the wrong skill ran, or to debug/investigate what the harness actually did. NOT for writing new rules (use strengthen) or editing the spec (use edit-spec).

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read .vigiles/runs.jsonl (JSONL — one record per line.

    line 25
  2. Very specific:

    Prefer promoting an ignored-but-decidable rule from prose to a deterministic gate: a repeated agent violation or a rule the agent keeps …

    line 48
  3. Very specific:

    If the fix is a spec change, hand off to edit-spec.

    line 55

≈ “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

Diagnose harness misbehavior from the flight recorder — the local, append-only ledger at .vigiles/runs.jsonl that vigiles writes as your harness runs. It records what actually happened, so you debug from evidence instead of guessing.

What's in the ledger

One JSON record per line, each with a kind:

  • hook — a compiled-hook gate decision: {event, decision: allow|deny|ask, mode: enforce|observe, rule, cmd, reason}.
  • agent — a subagent tool-contract decision: {name, tool, allowed, reason} (a false = the agent went outside its lane).
  • skill — a skill activation: {name, fired}.
  • eval — a measured metric: {name, metric, value} (e.g. trigger-rate recall/precision).
  • capability-diff — a blast-radius change: {pr, added, removed, widened}.

Instructions

Step 1: Read the ledger

Read .vigiles/runs.jsonl (JSONL — one record per line; tolerate a torn last line). If it's absent or empty, say so — there's nothing recorded yet; suggest running the harness (or vigiles audit) first. Do NOT fabricate records.

Step 2: Answer the specific question, evidence-first

Match the user's question to the ledger:

  • "Why did skill X stop firing / why does the wrong one run?" — count skill fires by name over time. If X's fire-rate dropped, look for a sibling that fired on the same kinds of prompts (a selection collision) and check their descriptions for overlap. Recommend differentiating or merging the descriptions.
  • "Why didn't my hook block that?" — find hook records for the event. A decision: allow on something that should be denied, or mode: observe (shadow, never blocks), or the absence of any record, tells you which. Recommend flipping observe→enforce or fixing the gate logic.
  • "Did a subagent misbehave?" — list agent records with allowed: false: the agent reached for a tool outside its declared contract. Point at the contract to tighten or widen.
  • "Is it getting worse?" — compare eval metric values (recall/precision) across runs; a downward trend is drift (often after a harness/model upgrade).

Step 3: Recommend a fix, tied to the evidence

Prefer promoting an ignored-but-decidable rule from prose to a deterministic gate: a repeated agent violation or a rule the agent keeps breaking → a compiled hook or a tighter tool-contract (the strengthen skill can help). A description collision → differentiate the skill descriptions. Always cite the specific records you based the diagnosis on.

Step 4: Offer the next step

If the fix is a spec change, hand off to edit-spec. If it's promoting guidance to a linter rule, hand off to strengthen. If a behavioral claim needs measuring (does the skill fire now?), hand off to test-harness (measureTriggerRate).

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.