Systematic debugging
Skill ComeOnOliver/skillshub/skills/aiskillstore/marketplace/codingcossack/systematic-debugging
π§ The right skill, one API call. AI agent skills registry with token-efficient skill resolution. 5,000+ skills from 500+ top repos.
npx -y skills add ComeOnOliver/skillshub --skill systematic-debuggingAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Root cause analysis for debugging. Use when bugs, test failures, or unexpected behavior have non-obvious causes, or after multiple fix attempts have failed.
SKILL.md
4.5 KB, ~1.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Systematic Debugging
Core principle: Find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
-
Read Error Messages Carefully
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
- Don't skip warnings
-
Reproduce Consistently
- What are the exact steps?
- If not reproducible β gather more data, don't guess
-
Check Recent Changes
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
-
Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
WHEN system has multiple components (CI β build β signing, API β service β database):
Add diagnostic instrumentation before proposing fixes:
For EACH component boundary: - Log what data enters/exits component - Verify environment/config propagation - Check state at each layer Run once to gather evidence β analyze β identify failing componentExample:
# Layer 1: Workflow echo "=== Secrets available: ===" echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}" # Layer 2: Build script env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment" # Layer 3: Signing security find-identity -v -
Trace Data Flow
See
references/root-cause-tracing.mdfor backward tracing technique.Quick version: Where does bad value originate? Trace up call chain until you find the source. Fix at source.
Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
- Find Working Examples - Similar working code in codebase
- Compare Against References - Read reference implementations COMPLETELY, don't skim
- Identify Differences - List every difference, don't assume "that can't matter"
- Understand Dependencies - Components, config, environment, assumptions
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
- Form Single Hypothesis - "I think X is root cause because Y" - be specific
- Test Minimally - SMALLEST possible change, one variable at a time
- Verify - Worked β Phase 4. Didn't work β form NEW hypothesis, don't stack fixes
- When You Don't Know - Say so. Don't pretend.
Phase 4: Implementation
-
Create Failing Test Case
- Use the
test-driven-developmentskill - MUST have before fixing
- Use the
-
Implement Single Fix
- ONE change at a time
- No "while I'm here" improvements
-
Verify Fix
- Test passes? Other tests still pass? Issue resolved?
-
If Fix Doesn't Work
- Count attempts
- If < 3: Return to Phase 1 with new information
- If β₯ 3: Escalate (below)
Escalation: 3+ Failed Fixes
Pattern indicating architectural problem:
- Each fix reveals new problems elsewhere
- Fixes require massive refactoring
- Shared state/coupling keeps surfacing
Action: STOP. Question fundamentals:
- Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
- Are we continuing through inertia?
- Refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
Discuss with human partner before more fix attempts. This is wrong architecture, not failed hypothesis.
Red Flags β STOP and Return to Phase 1
If you catch yourself thinking:
- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- "Just try changing X"
- "I'll skip the test"
- "It's probably X"
- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
- "One more fix" after 2+ failures
Human Signals You're Off Track
- "Is that not happening?" β You assumed without verifying
- "Will it show us...?" β You should have added evidence gathering
- "Stop guessing" β You're proposing fixes without understanding
- "Ultrathink this" β Question fundamentals
- Frustrated "We're stuck?" β Your approach isn't working
Response: Return to Phase 1.
Supporting Techniques
Reference files in references/:
root-cause-tracing.md- Trace bugs backward through call stackdefense-in-depth.md- Add validation at multiple layers after finding root causecondition-based-waiting.md- Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
Related skills:
test-driven-development- Creating failing test case (Phase 4)verification-before-completion- Verify fix before claiming success
Gives 6 of the 12 instructions most debug triage skills give in ~1.0k tokens
Counted across 839 of the 1,149 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06
- investigate root cause before proposing any fixhere, and in 102 of 839, across 65 files
- read error messages completelyhere, and in 90 of 839, across 48 files
- create a failing test case before fixinghere, and in 84 of 839, across 44 files
- reproduce the issue consistentlyhere, and in 82 of 839, across 40 files
- change one variable at a timein 82 of 839, across 42 files
- check recent changeshere, and in 74 of 839, across 35 files
- write the regression test before fixingin 74 of 839, across 36 files
- fix the root cause not the symptomin 60 of 839, across 43 files
- implement a single fix at a timein 59 of 839, across 20 files
- trace data flow backward to the sourcein 50 of 839, across 20 files
- remove all debug instrumentationin 49 of 839, across 13 files
- form a single hypothesishere, and in 48 of 839, across 18 files
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.