Przejdź do treści
Biblioteka skilli
Programowanie · Analiza

diagnosing-bugs

/diagnosing-bugs

Pomaga w diagnozie trudnych błędów i regresji wydajności, gdy coś przestaje działać albo zwalnia.

Repozytorium
quickreview ↗
Licencja
MIT
Ostatnia zmiana repozytorium
27.10.2026

Ocena i bezpieczeństwo

90/ 100Klasa: dobry
Format25 / 25
Frontmatter z nazwą i opisem, poprawna nazwa, opis do 1024 znaków, nazwa zgodna z folderem.
Odkrywalność25 / 25
Opis mówi, kiedy użyć skilla, ma sensowną długość i jest w 3. osobie.
Treść25 / 35
Co najmniej 150 słów i do 500 linii, nagłówki, listy kroków, przykłady albo kod.
Higiena15 / 15
Bez zaślepek typu TODO, bez ścieżek Windows, z licencją.
Ryzykobrak sygnałów w skanie
Pliki w paczce
3
Skrypty
1
Komentarze HTML
0
Adresy URL w SKILL.md
0
Przestarzałość

Brak sygnałów. Repozytorium zmienione 27.10.2026, bez odwołań do wycofanych modeli i API.

Licencja

MIT, otwarta: można używać i zmieniać, z zachowaniem informacji o autorze.

Co sprawdzić przed instalacją
  • 1 skrypt w paczce. Przejrzyj je przed instalacją, bo Claude może je uruchomić.

Skrypty: scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh

Co robi i kiedy

Pomaga w diagnozie trudnych błędów i regresji wydajności, gdy coś przestaje działać albo zwalnia.

Wyzwalacze z opisu

diagnosedebug this
Oryginalny opis (EN)

Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.

Jak działa

  1. Redact
  2. Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop
  3. Phase 2 — Reproduce + minimise
  4. Phase 3 — Hypothesise
  5. Phase 4 — Instrument
  6. Phase 5 — Fix + regression test
  7. Phase 6 — Cleanup
Sekcje z nagłówków SKILL.md, w oryginale · 135 linii, 1 406 słów
Podgląd SKILL.md
---
name: diagnosing-bugs
description: Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.
---

# Diagnosing Bugs

A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.

When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.

## Redact

This skill has you show commands, outputs and captured artifacts. **Redact every secret first** — write `<REDACTED>` in its place. Build loops against env vars, so the credential stays in the environment rather than in what you show. Captured artifacts carry auth headers: quote only the lines that carry the signal.

If the redacted output is not enough to diagnose the bug, say so and ask the user.

## Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop

**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a **tight** pass/fail signal for the bug — one that goes red on _this_ bug — you will find the cause; bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume it. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you.

Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**

### Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order

1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.
2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.
5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.

Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.

### Tighten the loop

Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, **tighten** it:

- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)

A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop; a 2-second deterministic one is tight — a debugging superpower.

### Non-deterministic bugs

The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.

### When you genuinely cannot build a loop

Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a redacted captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop.

### Completion criterion — a tight loop that goes red

Phase 1 is done when the loop is **tight** and **red-capable**: you can name **one command** — a script path, a test invocation, a curl — that you have **already run at least once** (show the invocation and its output, redacted), and that is:

- [ ] **Red-capable** — it drives the actual bug code path and asserts the **user's exact symptom**, so it can go red on this bug and green once fixed. Not "runs without erroring" — it must be able to _catch this specific bug_.
- [ ] **Deterministic** — same verdict every run (flaky bugs: a pinned, high reproduction rate, per above).
- [ ] **Fast** — seconds, not minutes.
- [ ] **Agent-runnable** — you can run it unattended; a human in the loop only via `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh`.

If you catch yourself reading code to build a theory before this command exists, **stop — jumping straight to a hypothesis is the exact failure this skill prevents.** No red-capable command, no Phase 2.

## Phase 2 — Reproduce + minimise

Run the loop. Watch it go red — the bug appears.

Confirm:

- [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described — not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.
- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).
- [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.

### Minimise

Once it's red, shrink the repro to the **smallest scenario that still goes red**. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps **one at a time**, re-running the loop after each cut — keep only what's load-bearing for the failure.

Why bother: a minimal repro shrinks the hypothesis space in Phase 3 (fewer moving parts left to suspect) and becomes the clean regression test in Phase 5.

Done when **every remaining element is load-bearing** — removing any one of them makes the loop go green.

Do not proceed until you have reproduced **and** minimised.

## Phase 3 — Hypothesise

Generate **3–5 ranked hypotheses** before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.

Each hypothesis must be **falsifiable**: state the prediction it makes.

> Format: "If <X> is the cause, then <changing Y> will make the bug disappear / <changing Z> will make it worse."

If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe — discard or sharpen it.

**Show the ranked list to the user before testing.** They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it — proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK.

## Phase 4 — Instrument

Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. **Change one variable at a time.**

Tool preference:

1. **Debugger / REPL inspection** if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.
2. **Targeted logs** at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.
3. Never "log everything and grep".

**Tag every debug log** with a unique prefix, e.g. `[DEBUG-a4f2]`. Cleanup at the end becomes a single grep. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.

**Perf branch.** For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness, `performance.now()`, profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second.

## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test

Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.

A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.

**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.

If a correct seam exists:

1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
2. Watch it fail.
3. Apply the fix.
4. Watch it pass.
5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.

## Phase 6 — Cleanup

Required before declaring done:

- [ ] Original repro no longer reproduces (re-run the Phase 1 loop)
- [ ] Regression test passes (or absence of seam is documented)
- [ ] All `[DEBUG-...]` instrumentation removed (`grep` the prefix)
- [ ] Throwaway prototypes deleted (or moved to a clearly-marked debug location)
- [ ] The hypothesis that turned out correct is stated in the commit / PR message — so the next debugger learns
Pliki w paczce (3)
  • SKILL.md 8 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml 1 KB
  • scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh 1 KB

Wersje

RepozytoriumWynikLicencja
Ta strona · quickchatai/quickreview90MIT
FrancoStino/opencode-skills-collection100MIT
sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills100MIT
natsummerance/agents98MIT
zenobi-us/dotfiles90MIT
gtapps/hermitd90MIT
yassimba/loom90Apache-2.0
byheaven/byheaven-skills90MIT
sek788432/stock-back-test-system90Apache-2.0

Identyczna treść występuje jeszcze w 1 innych folderach na GitHubie. Tu pokazujemy jedną, najlepiej ocenioną kopię.

Migawka bazy z 28.10.2026 · wersja paczki 1530a6d53a2b (skrót SHA-256 całej paczki)

Zgłoś problem z tym skillem: szkodliwa treść, błędny opis albo prośba autora o usunięcie.

Podobne skille

  • 90debug
    Prowadzi zdyscyplinowaną pętlę diagnozy dla trudnych błędów i regresji wydajności, gdy coś jest zepsute, rzuca wyjątki, zawodzi lub działa wolno.
  • 100diagnose
    Prowadzi zdyscyplinowaną pętlę diagnozy trudnych błędów i regresji wydajności: odtworzenie, minimalizacja, hipoteza, instrumentacja, poprawka i test regresji.
  • 90diagnose
    Prowadzi zdyscyplinowaną pętlę diagnozy trudnych błędów i regresji wydajności: reprodukcja, minimalizacja, hipoteza, instrumentacja, naprawa i test regresji.
  • 90diagnose
    Prowadzi zdyscyplinowaną pętlę diagnozy trudnych błędów i regresji wydajności: reprodukcja, minimalizacja, hipoteza, instrumentacja, naprawa i test regresji.
  • 90diagnose
    Diagnozuje trudne błędy i regresje wydajności pętlą od reprodukcji do testu regresji, gdy coś działa źle, rzuca wyjątki, zawodzi lub działa wolno.
  • 85solo-diagnose
    Prowadzi pętlę diagnozy trudnych błędów i regresji wydajności: najpierw buduje ciasną pętlę sprzężenia zwrotnego, potem stawia hipotezy, gdy coś rzuca błąd, zawodzi, działa niestabilnie lub wolno.

Uwagi i zgłoszenia

Wiadomość trafi do Bartosza Sokolińskiego. Adres e-mail jest potrzebny tylko do odpowiedzi. Szczegóły w polityce prywatności.