Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

systematic-debugging系统调试

Agent Skill

systematic-debugging 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。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。

总安装

1,853

周安装

78

GitHub Stars

2

下载量

649
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

3

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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:systematic-debugging(系统调试)
来源仓库:https://github.com/izyanrajwani/agent-skills-library
仓库路径:skills/systematic-debugging
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/izyanrajwani/agent-skills-library --skill systematic-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。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/izyanrajwani/agent-skills-library --skill systematic-debugging

简介

systematic-debugging 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。

  • 适用于需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理的任务场景。
  • 核心能力包括信息检索、候选结果筛选和相关内容查找。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装使用。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网或文件读写操作。

SKILL.md

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:

  1. Read Error Messages Carefully

- Read stack traces completely - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes - Don't skip warnings

  1. Reproduce Consistently

- What are the exact steps? - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess

  1. Check Recent Changes

- Git diff, recent commits - New dependencies, config changes - Environmental differences

  1. Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → 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 → analyze → identify failing component Example: # 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
  2. Trace Data Flow See references/root-cause-tracing.md for 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

  1. Find Working Examples - Similar working code in codebase
  2. Compare Against References - Read reference implementations COMPLETELY, don't skim
  3. Identify Differences - List every difference, don't assume "that can't matter"
  4. Understand Dependencies - Components, config, environment, assumptions

Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing

  1. Form Single Hypothesis - "I think X is root cause because Y" - be specific
  2. Test Minimally - SMALLEST possible change, one variable at a time
  3. Verify - Worked → Phase 4. Didn't work → form NEW hypothesis, don't stack fixes
  4. When You Don't Know - Say so. Don't pretend.

Phase 4: Implementation

  1. Create Failing Test Case

- Use the test-driven-development skill - MUST have before fixing

  1. Implement Single Fix

- ONE change at a time - No "while I'm here" improvements

  1. Verify Fix

- Test passes? Other tests still pass? Issue resolved?

  1. If Fix Doesn't Work

- Count attempts - If < 3: Return to Phase 1 with new information - If ≥ 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 → 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?" → You assumed without verifying
  • "Will it show us...?" → You should have added evidence gathering
  • "Stop guessing" → You're proposing fixes without understanding
  • "Ultrathink this" → Question fundamentals
  • Frustrated "We're stuck?" → 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 stack
  • defense-in-depth.md - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
  • condition-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

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Claude Code

29.8%
按下载量换算193

OpenCode

22.73%
按下载量换算148

windsurf

17.69%
按下载量换算115

weavefox

11.73%
按下载量换算76

Codex

8.08%
按下载量换算52

github-copilot

3.28%
按下载量换算21

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

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。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills