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).
In this repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- examples/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- src/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- add-a-linterSkill
- audience-checkSkill
- audit-feedback-loopSkill
- code-qualitySkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dogfood-cliSkill
- enforce-rules-formatSkill
- generate-logoSkill
- hexagonal-architectureSkill
- landing-siteSkill
- pr-to-lint-ruleSkill
- review-docsSkill
- screenshotSkill
- ship-a-featureSkill
- verify-docs-findableSkill
- pr-to-lint-ruleSkill
- adopt-specSkill
- edit-specSkill
- linter-docsSkill
- strengthenSkill
- test-harnessSkill
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
- Very specific: line 25
Read .vigiles/runs.jsonl (JSONL — one record per line.
- Very specific: line 48
Prefer promoting an ignored-but-decidable rule from prose to a deterministic gate: a repeated agent violation or a rule the agent keeps …
- Very specific: line 55
If the fix is a spec change, hand off to edit-spec.
≈ “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.
Files
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}(afalse= 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
skillfires 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
hookrecords for the event. Adecision: allowon something that should be denied, ormode: observe(shadow, never blocks), or the absence of any record, tells you which. Recommend flippingobserve→enforceor fixing the gate logic. - "Did a subagent misbehave?" — list
agentrecords withallowed: false: the agent reached for a tool outside its declared contract. Point at the contract to tighten or widen. - "Is it getting worse?" — compare
evalmetric 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).
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.

