Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

compound-eng-debugging(复合工程调试)

compound-eng-debugging 用于记录任务执行中的错误、用户纠正、经验和能力缺口,适合在 OpenClaw 中希望让 Agent 持续沉淀问题、修正和最佳实践时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

compound-eng-debugging 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 12,186。

总安装 10,496周安装 433GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 3,429核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
3.0.5

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:compound-eng-debugging(复合工程调试)
来源仓库:https://github.com/iliaal/compound-eng-debugging
安装命令:
openclaw skills install compound-eng-debugging
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install compound-eng-debugging

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

compound-eng-debugging 系统性根本原因调试工具,支持错误日志分析与验证修复方案。适用于 OpenClaw 中处理堆栈跟踪、片状测试失败或回归问题等未预期情况。提供分类诊断流程,协助定位代码缺陷与环境配置问题。安装需确认项目日志可读权限,建议结合版本控制系统追溯变更历史。

涉及生产环境修复时,应优先 dry-run 并备份关键数据,防止误操作扩大影响。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install compound-eng-debugging;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

compound-eng-debugging 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install compound-eng-debugging。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

compound-eng-debugging 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

compound-eng-debugging 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

compound-eng-debugging 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

compound-eng-debugging 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 10,496 次,近一周安装 433 次,下载 3,429 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

compound-eng-debugging 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
compound-eng-debugging

复合工程调试 · 本页

10,496—需要联网MIT-0有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
ia-debugging
class
discipline
description
>-

Debugging

The Iron Law

Never propose a fix without first identifying the root cause. "Quick fix now, investigate later" is forbidden -- it creates harder bugs. This applies ESPECIALLY under time pressure, when "just one quick fix" seems obvious, or when multiple fixes have already failed. Those are the moments this process matters most.

Trivially obvious bugs are their own root cause -- state the cause and fix directly. A bug is trivially obvious only when the cause is in the error message (e.g., ModuleNotFoundError: no module named foo, a typo in a string literal). If the error shows where something fails but not why (e.g., TypeError: Cannot read 'id' of undefined), it is not trivially obvious -- investigate why the value is undefined.

Root Cause Analysis

Root cause identification is the core deliverable of debugging -- not the fix itself.

  • Trace backward: Start at the symptom, walk the call chain in reverse to find where behavior diverges from expectation
  • Differential analysis: Compare working vs broken state across dimensions (code version, data, environment, timing, configuration)
  • Regression hunting: Use git bisect to pinpoint the exact commit that introduced the issue
  • Evidence-based: Document root cause with file:line references, log output, and concrete reproduction proof. Root cause = the earliest point where behavior diverged from expectation, stated with evidence at least two levels deep (not just "it failed here" but "it failed here because X was null, and X was null because Y never set it")
  • Competing hypotheses: When the cause is ambiguous, generate multiple hypotheses and rank by evidence strength (see Escalation section below)

Environment Diagnostics

Capture environment state with bash collect-diagnostics.sh (script). Use during differential analysis or attach to bug reports. See specialized-patterns.md for details.

Process

0. Read the error. Read the full error message, stack trace, and line numbers before doing anything. Error messages frequently contain the exact fix. Don't skim -- read the entire output.

1. Reproduce -- make the bug consistent. If intermittent, run N times under stress or simulate poor conditions (slow network, low memory) until it triggers reliably.

2. Form initial hypotheses -- before investigating broadly, form 2-3 hypotheses based on the reproduction. What are the most likely causes given the symptoms? This focuses the investigation on plausible paths rather than searching aimlessly.

3. Reduce -- strip the reproduction to the minimal failing case. Remove unrelated code, data, and configuration until removing one more piece makes the bug disappear. That remaining piece is the trigger.

4. Investigate -- trace backward through the call chain from the symptom. Compare working vs broken state using a differential table (environment, version, data, timing -- what changed?).

Multi-component systems (CI -> build -> deploy, API -> service -> DB): before proposing fixes, instrument each component boundary:

  • Log what data enters the component
  • Log what data exits the component
  • Verify environment/config propagation across the boundary

Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks, then investigate that specific component. Use console.error() (not logger, which may be suppressed in tests). Log BEFORE the dangerous operation, not after it fails. Include context: cwd, env vars, new Error().stack.

Pre-existing failure proof: Before claiming a test failure is "not related to our changes," prove it. Run git stash && [test command] on clean state to confirm the failure exists on the base branch. Pre-existing without receipts is a lazy claim.

Before external searches (web, docs, forums): strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL fragments, and customer data from the query. Raw stack traces leak privacy and return noise.

5. Hypothesize and test -- one change at a time. If a hypothesis is wrong, fully revert before testing the next. Use git bisect to find regressions efficiently. Scope lock: after forming a hypothesis, identify the narrowest affected directory or file set. Do not edit code outside that scope during the debug session. If the fix requires changes elsewhere, update the hypothesis first.

6. Fix and verify -- create a failing test FIRST, then fix. Run the test. Confirm the original reproduction case passes. No completion claims without fresh verification evidence (see ia-verification-before-completion).

Debug Report

Emit after every resolved bug. For non-trivial production bugs, also write a full Postmortem (see below).

After resolving, output a structured report:

SYMPTOM:    [What was observed]
ROOT CAUSE: [Why it happened -- file:line with evidence]
FIX:        [What changed]
EVIDENCE:   [Verification output proving the fix]
REGRESSION: [Test added to prevent recurrence]
RELATED:    [Prior bugs in same area, known issues, architectural notes]
STATUS:     DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT (definitions in `ia-verification-before-completion`)

Three-Fix Threshold

After 3 failed fix attempts, STOP. An attempt = one complete hypothesis-test cycle (form hypothesis, make minimal change, verify). The problem is likely architectural, not a surface bug. Escalate to the user before attempting further fixes. Step back and question assumptions about how the system works. Read the actual code path end-to-end instead of spot-checking.

Architectural problem indicators -- signals the bug is structural, not a surface fix:

  • Each fix reveals new shared state or coupling you didn't expect
  • Fixes require massive refactoring to implement correctly
  • Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere in the system

No root cause found: If investigation is exhausted without a clear root cause, say so explicitly. Document what was checked, what was ruled out, and what instrumentation to add for next occurrence. An honest "unknown" with good diagnostics beats a fabricated cause.

Escalation: Competing Hypotheses

When the cause is unclear across multiple components, use Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). Generate hypotheses across failure categories, collect evidence FOR and AGAINST each, rank by confidence, and investigate the strongest first.

See competing-hypotheses.md for the full methodology: six failure categories, evidence strength scale, confidence scoring, and anti-patterns.

Intermittent Issues

For race conditions, deadlocks, resource exhaustion, and timing-dependent bugs, see specialized-patterns.md. Key signals: shared mutable state, check-then-act, circular lock acquisition, connection pool exhaustion under load.

Defense-in-Depth Validation

After fixing, validate at every layer -- not just where the bug appeared. See defense-in-depth.md for the four-layer pattern (entry, business logic, environment, instrumentation) with examples.

Bug Triage

When multiple bugs exist, prioritize by:

  • Severity (data loss > crash > wrong output > cosmetic) separately from Priority (blocking release > customer-facing > internal)
  • Reproducibility: always > sometimes > once. "Sometimes" bugs need instrumentation before fixing.
  • Quick wins: if a fix is < 5 minutes and unblocks others, do it first

Common Patterns

  • Async ordering -- missing await, unhandled promise rejection, callback firing before setup completes. The temporal gap between setup and callback is where bugs hide.
  • Stale state -- cached values, stale closures, outdated config, old build artifacts. When behavior contradicts the code you're reading, verify you're running what you think you're running.
  • Recurring fix site -- if git log shows 3+ prior fixes in the same file, the file needs redesign, not another patch. Escalate as architectural smell.

Root Cause Tracing

When a bug manifests deep in the call stack, resist fixing where the error appears. Trace backward through the call chain to find the original trigger, then fix at the source. See root-cause-tracing.md for the full technique with stack instrumentation patterns and test pollution detection.

Pattern Comparison

When the cause isn't obvious, find working similar code in the codebase and compare it structurally with the broken path. Read the working reference implementation completely -- don't skim. List every difference between working and broken, however small. Don't assume any difference can't matter. The bug is in one of them.

Anti-Patterns and Red Flags

When you catch yourself doing or thinking these things, stop and return to Step 1 (Reproduce):

What You're Doing / ThinkingWhat It Really Means
Shotgun debugging / "I see the problem, let me fix it" / "It's probably X"Reasoning is not evidence. Form a hypothesis, make one change, test, revert if wrong. Trace the actual execution path.
Ignoring intermittent failures ("works on my machine")Instrument and reproduce under load. Isolation success doesn't explain integration failure.
"I'll clean up the debugging later"Remove diagnostic code now or it ships to production.
"This failure is pre-existing, not related to our changes"Prove it: run the test suite on the base branch. No receipts = no claim.
"The test is wrong, not the code"Verify before dismissing. Read the test's intent. If the test is genuinely wrong, fix it with a clear rationale, not a silent update.
"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern"Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read the working example completely and apply it exactly.

See specialized-patterns.md for anti-pattern signals and specialized debugging patterns.

Verify

  • Root cause identified with file:line evidence (not just "it failed here")
  • Regression test exists and fails without the fix, passes with it
  • Debug Report emitted with all seven fields (SYMPTOM, ROOT CAUSE, FIX, EVIDENCE, REGRESSION, RELATED, STATUS)
  • No diagnostic instrumentation left in code (git diff shows no leftover logging)

Integration

This skill is referenced by:

  • /ia-work -- during task execution for bug investigation
  • ia-writing-tests -- creating failing tests to reproduce bugs
  • ia-verification-before-completion -- before claiming a bug is fixed
  • ia-bug-reproduction-validator agent -- follows Root Cause Analysis methodology
  • ia-infrastructure-engineer agent -- follows Postmortem template for production incidents
  • ia-reproduce-bug command -- automated bug reproduction workflow

Postmortem

For non-trivial production bugs, write a lightweight postmortem (timeline, root cause, impact, fix, prevention). See specialized-patterns.md for the template.

平台分布

OpenClaw

98.15%
按下载量换算3,366

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

可疑

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills