Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

ring%3asystematic-debugging(Ring%3a 系统调试)

ring%3asystematic-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。

ring%3asystematic-debugging 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 45,630。

总安装 838周安装 36GitHub Stars 180下载 294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
unknown

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:ring%3asystematic-debugging(Ring%3a 系统调试)
来源仓库:https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring
仓库路径:skills/ring%3Asystematic-debugging
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring --skill ring: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。该命令会通过 npx skills 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。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring --skill ring:systematic-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。

ring%3asystematic-debugging 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。它适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中根据关键词或任务线索定位内容。可通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装,具体能力以原始文档为准。

使用前应核实权限边界、维护情况及是否触发文件读写或网络请求。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ring%3Asystematic-debugging

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 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;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 npx skills add https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring --skill ring:systematic-debu…;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

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

ring%3asystematic-debugging 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/lerianstudio/ring --skill ring:systematic-debugging。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ring%3asystematic-debugging 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。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。

ring%3asystematic-debugging 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

ring%3asystematic-debugging 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

ring%3asystematic-debugging 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 838 次,近一周安装 36 次,下载 294 次,GitHub 180 星。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。

ring%3asystematic-debugging 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 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 Codex,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。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 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
ring%3asystematic-debugging

Ring%3a 系统调试 · 本页

838180只读未明确未收录

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

Systematic Debugging

Core principle: NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST.

When to Use

Use for ANY technical issue: test failures, bugs, unexpected behavior, performance problems, build failures, integration issues.

Especially when:

  • Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
  • "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
  • Previous fix didn't work
  • You don't fully understand the issue

The Four Phases

Complete each phase before proceeding to the next.

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

MUST complete ALL before Phase 2 (copy to TodoWrite): □ Error message copied verbatim | □ Reproduction confirmed | □ Recent changes reviewed (git diff) | □ Evidence from ALL components | □ Data flow traced (origin → error)

  1. Read Error Messages - Stack traces completely, line numbers, file paths, error codes. Don't skip warnings.
  2. Reproduce Consistently - Exact steps to trigger. Intermittent → gather more data.
  3. Check Recent Changes - git diff, recent commits, new dependencies, config changes.
  4. Multi-Component Systems - Log at each boundary: what enters, what exits, env/config state. Run once, analyze, identify failing layer.
  5. Trace Data Flow - Error deep in stack? Use root-cause-tracing skill. Quick: Where does bad value originate? Trace up call stack, fix at source not symptom.

Phase 1 Summary: Error: [exact] | Reproduces: [steps] | Recent changes: [commits] | Component evidence: [each] | Data origin: [source]

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

  1. Find Working Examples - Similar working code in codebase. What works that's similar to what's broken?
  2. Compare Against References - Read reference implementation COMPLETELY. Don't skim - understand fully.
  3. Identify Differences - List EVERY difference (working vs broken). Don't assume "that can't matter."
  4. Understand Dependencies - What components, config, environment needed? What assumptions does it make?

Phase 3: Hypothesis 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 and Track - H#1: [what] → [result] | H#2: [what] → [result] | H#3: [what] → [STOP if fails] If 3 hypotheses fail: STOP immediately → "3 hypotheses failed, architecture review required" → Discuss with partner before more attempts.
  4. When You Don't Know - Say "I don't understand X." Ask for help. Research more.

Phase 4: Implementation

Fix root cause, not symptom:

  1. Create Failing Test - Simplest reproduction. Use ring:test-driven-development skill.
  2. Implement Single Fix - Address root cause only. ONE change at a time. No "while I'm here" improvements.
  3. Verify Fix - Test passes? No other tests broken? Issue resolved?
  4. If Fix Doesn't Work - Count fixes. If < 3: Return to Phase 1. If ≥ 3: STOP → Architecture review required.
  5. After Fix Verified - Test passes and issue resolved? Move to post-completion review.
  6. If 3+ Fixes Failed - Pattern: each fix reveals new problem elsewhere, requires massive refactoring, creates new symptoms. STOP and discuss: Is architecture sound? Should we refactor vs. fix?

Time Limits

Debugging time boxes:

  • 30 min without root cause → Escalate
  • 3 failed fixes → Architecture review
  • 1 hour total → Stop, document, ask for guidance

Red Flags

STOP and return to Phase 1 if thinking:

  • "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
  • "Just try changing X and see if it works"
  • "Add multiple changes, run tests"
  • "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
  • "It's probably X, let me fix that"
  • "I don't fully understand but this might work"
  • "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
  • "Each fix reveals new problem" (architecture issue)

User signals you're wrong:

  • "Is that not happening?" → You assumed without verifying
  • "Stop guessing" → You're proposing fixes without understanding
  • "We're stuck?" → Your approach isn't working

When you see these: STOP. Return to Phase 1.

Quick Reference

PhaseKey ActivitiesSuccess Criteria
1. Root CauseRead errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence, trace data flowUnderstand WHAT and WHY
2. PatternFind working examples, compare differences, understand dependenciesIdentify what's different
3. HypothesisForm theory, test minimally, verify one at a timeConfirmed or new hypothesis
4. ImplementationCreate test, fix root cause, verifyBug resolved, tests pass

Circuit breakers:

  • 3 hypotheses fail → STOP, architecture review
  • 3 fixes fail → STOP, question fundamentals
  • 30 min no root cause → Escalate

Integration with Other Skills

Required sub-skills:

  • root-cause-tracing - When error is deep in call stack (Phase 1, Step 5)
  • ring:test-driven-development - For failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)

Complementary:

  • defense-in-depth - Add validation after finding root cause
  • verification-before-completion - Verify fix worked before claiming success

Blocker Criteria

STOP and report if:

Decision TypeBlocker ConditionRequired Action
Cannot reproduce issueBug is intermittent and no consistent reproduction stepsSTOP and gather more data before proceeding
3 hypotheses failedThree consecutive hypotheses tested and all failedSTOP and escalate for architecture review
3 fixes failedThree fix attempts made but issue persistsSTOP and question fundamental assumptions
30 minutes without root causeExtended investigation without identifying root causeSTOP and escalate for help
Fix reveals new problemEach attempted fix creates different symptomsSTOP and request architecture review

Cannot Be Overridden

The following requirements CANNOT be waived:

  • MUST complete Phase 1 (Root Cause Investigation) before any code changes
  • MUST form evidence-based hypothesis before attempting fixes
  • CANNOT skip creating a failing test in Phase 4
  • MUST stop and escalate after 3 failed hypotheses or fixes
  • CANNOT claim fix is complete without fresh verification

Severity Calibration

SeverityConditionRequired Action
CRITICALProduction system affectedMUST prioritize and escalate immediately
CRITICALData corruption or loss riskMUST stop other work and focus exclusively
HIGHUser-facing functionality brokenMUST investigate before other tasks
HIGHTests failing on main branchMUST resolve before merging new code
MEDIUMNon-critical feature affectedShould investigate within current session
LOWMinor behavior deviationFix in next iteration if time permits

Anti-Rationalization Table

RationalizationWhy It's WRONGRequired Action
"Quick fix for now, investigate later"Later never comes. Quick fixes mask root causes.MUST complete Phase 1 before any code change
"Just try changing X and see"Guessing wastes time and introduces new bugsMUST form hypothesis with evidence first
"I'm confident this is the issue"Confidence without evidence is guessingMUST verify with reproduction steps
"One more fix attempt" (after 2+)Pattern indicates architecture issue, not bugSTOP and escalate for architecture review
"Each fix reveals new problem"Symptom of deeper structural issueSTOP: architecture review REQUIRED
"I don't fully understand but this might work"Partial understanding = partial fix = new bugsMUST understand root cause before fixing
"Skip the test, I'll manually verify"Manual verification is unreliable and non-repeatableMUST create failing test (Phase 4, Step 1)
"Previous run showed it works"Stale evidence is not evidenceMUST re-verify with fresh execution

Pressure Resistance

User SaysYour Response
"Just fix it quickly, we don't have time""MUST follow the phases - skipping investigation causes more delays through repeated fixes"
"Try this change, I think it'll work""I'll add that as a hypothesis and test it properly in Phase 3"
"We've tried 5 fixes, try one more""CANNOT proceed - 3+ failed fixes requires architecture review before more attempts"
"Skip the investigation, the cause is obvious""MUST verify the obvious before acting - obvious causes are often wrong"

Required Patterns

This skill uses these universal patterns:

  • State Tracking: See skills/shared-patterns/state-tracking.md
  • Failure Recovery: See skills/shared-patterns/failure-recovery.md
  • Exit Criteria: See skills/shared-patterns/exit-criteria.md
  • TodoWrite: See skills/shared-patterns/todowrite-integration.md

Apply ALL patterns when using this skill.

平台分布

Codex

32.63%
按下载量换算96

Claude

29.92%
按下载量换算88

Cursor

17.95%
按下载量换算53

Gemini CLI

10.27%
按下载量换算30

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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。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