systematic-debugging
Use when encountering a bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Install / Use
npx skills add GanyuanRan/Aegis --skill systematic-debuggingInstalls into whichever agent you are using.
SKILL.md
Installable skill definition
Quality Score
Category
LegalSupported Platforms
Tags
Our assessment of systematic-debugging
systematic-debugging scores 87/100 on our quality scale, 68th of 181 Legal skills we index (top 38%).
Its SKILL.md is 11 KB long, well organised into 9 sections with 2 code examples: a thorough specification that gives an agent plenty to work with.
With 1,273 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.
Maintenance, license and trust
- The repository was last updated 7 days ago, so systematic-debugging is actively maintained.
- It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
- Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.
systematic-debugging compared with similar skills
All 4 of these similar skills score higher than systematic-debugging; compare them before choosing.
| Skill | Score | Stars | Updated | Format |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| systematic-debugging (this skill)by GanyuanRan | 87 | 1.3k | 7d ago | SKILL.md |
| algorithmic-artby anthropics | 100 | 177.9k | 8d ago | SKILL.md |
| pptxby anthropics | 100 | 177.9k | 8d ago | SKILL.md |
| designby nextlevelbuilder | 100 | 130.2k | 9d ago | SKILL.md |
| ui-ux-pro-maxby nextlevelbuilder | 100 | 130.2k | 9d ago | SKILL.md |
Frequently asked questions
- How do I install systematic-debugging?
- Run
npx skills add GanyuanRan/Aegis --skill systematic-debugging. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent. - Which AI agents does systematic-debugging work with?
- It is written for Universal, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
- Is systematic-debugging safe to use?
- It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
- Is systematic-debugging still maintained?
- The repository was last updated 7 days ago, so systematic-debugging is actively maintained.
Skill content
View source on GitHubname: systematic-debugging description: "Use when encountering a bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes"
Execute
Bug, failure, or unexpected behavior:
- Isolate — read error, reproduce, inspect the diff, and drill upward through diagnostic layers: L1 symptom → L2 logic → L3 system → L4 architecture → L5 cross-system contract → L6 platform → L7 spec gap. Layers are observation altitudes, not one causal chain; the causal shape at the stop altitude is classified explicitly before any root claim. Stop only when causal proof accounts for the recurrence generator or reaches a T-class boundary.
- Identify owner — compare working behavior, trace the bad value, locate the canonical owner, and treat duplicate owners as a finding.
- Decide before editing — Before fixing, run Patch-Shape Triage and Ripple Signal Triage when shared logic,
contracts, fallbacks, adapters, producer/consumer seams, or source-of-truth
boundaries are involved. Surface Change Necessity for any new source-code
path or non-trivial source edit. Run Minimality Check for a new branch,
fallback, adapter, owner, or compatibility path, and Pre-Edit Complexity
Check for an overloaded owner or complexity growth. After Change Necessity
selects
code-changeand before the first repair edit, own the TDD Route for the repair slice pertest-driven-development(offdefault;stricton behavior/bugfix/shared/contract/persistence/permission/migration risk). - Prove — test one hypothesis with the smallest reproduction or
verification. A failing test first is required only by a recorded
TDD Route: strict; withTDD Mode: off, do not require a failing test or RED/GREEN cycle. Three failed fixes means stop and question architecture. - Repair and close — fix minimally at the canonical owner, verify in proportion to risk, review architecture, and close both repair and retirement tracks. If any symptom remains, stop and diagnose it separately.
Done: confidence ≥ B, causal status matches recurrence evidence or an external terminal, tracks explicit, no H signal, and required D evidence passes.
Core invariant
Find root cause and fix the bug class at its canonical owner. A minimal fix is not the smallest textual diff; it is the smallest sufficient owner-level repair.
Quick bug lane
For a low-risk, reproducible, single-owner bug with no patch-shape signal, keep
the readback compact: Symptom, Reproduction, Root Cause, Change Necessity, Fix Boundary, and Verification. Skip the causal card only when
the causal-proof owner's Quick Exit Proof passes.
Quick bug lane must surface Change Necessity before source edits. One sentence
may cover the user-visible need, no-change/non-code option, why code must
change, minimum boundary, and an explicit decision token such as
Decision: code-change. If shared logic, a contract, fallback, duplicate
owner, consumer patch, or cross-module behavior appears, leave this lane.
Aegis Visibility names the evidence/owner/patch-shape/verification effect.
Pass root cause, avoided misfix, boundary, evidence, complexity, and risk to
verification-before-completion; no separate receipt.
Diagnose before repair
For UI/interaction defects, compose ui-ux-governance for relevant state and
recovery rules at the user-visible seam. Keep reproduction/root-cause ownership
here; a proposed manual check is not executed evidence.
- Read the complete error/stack and record inputs, environment, versions, and success criteria.
- Reproduce consistently. If unstable, read
feedback-loop-construction.mdonly when evidence shows intermittent or timing-dependent reproduction and build a bounded loop. Shrink the repro to load-bearing elements as the test input, never the fix scope: still drill upward; test at the correct seam. - Inspect recent changes and compare a working example. Code is evidence; if
authority, glossary, code, and tests disagree, compose
establishing-project-contextrather than silently redefining a term. - Instrument component boundaries, then trace the bad value toward its source.
Read
root-cause-tracing.mdonly when the observed bad value is several calls or components downstream from its origin. - State one hypothesis and falsify it with one-variable evidence. Do not stack
speculative fixes. End each loop with
Goal | DeeperCause | Evidence | Risk/Unknown | Decision.
Canonical-owner and patch-shape gate
Before editing, continue upward unless evidence proves the local site is the canonical owner when the candidate is any of these signals:
- keyword, phrase, regex, negation-word list, or sample-text exception;
- local guard, extra conditional,
try/catch, early return, or one-off branch; - fallback, adapter, compatibility branch, prompt branch, or legacy path expansion;
- consumer/caller/readiness/presentation-layer patch;
- downstream logic re-parses raw text or re-infers action/state while typed intent, normalized state, contract, or another source-of-truth exists;
- artifact/download/export/readback/cache patch without producer/owner proof.
PatchShape:
CanonicalOwner:
UpwardDrillSignal:
Decision: fix owner | continue investigation | escalate
A locally green test does not erase triage; a renamed carrier is not a new direction.
When a repair may reinterpret or retire existing semantics, responsibility, contract, or relationship, name the behavior to preserve, highest-risk counterexample, and material unknown. For each known explicit anchor or upstream/downstream reference, state its role and disposition: preserve, rebind to the canonical owner, retire with reason, or reject because of conflict. Leave unresolved relationships unknown; do not re-infer them downstream. Bind role before value and retire invalid responsibility, not evidenced carrier capability. This bounded reminder is not a behavior matrix, relationship graph, referential-integrity proof, or exhaustive discovery claim. It adds no artifact, TDD risk signal, or regression scope; the existing TDD route owner and configured/default mode still apply.
If the diagnosis crosses L3, a patch-shape signal fires, a user disputes the
root claim, a prior fix leaves a symptom, compound/root topology is plausible,
two or more anchored manifestations of one incident exist, reproduction
conditions diverge across occurrences, or an
upstream producer/config/default/contract/spec remains unexcluded, read
root-cause-claim-contract.md before claiming a root cause. It is the sole
owner of the Pre-Claim Gate, causal-closure/falsifier proof, layer-ceiling
proof, and Causal Topology Gate.
Change Necessity
This decision is behavior-triggered, not prompt-triggered. It applies to any new source-code path. Before that path or a non-trivial source edit, expose the Change Necessity decision (no-change | docs/config-only | code-change | needs-clarification); field detail lives in advanced-debugging-governance.md.
Minimality and owner fit
For any proposed branch, fallback, adapter, compatibility path, or new owner, run Minimality Check (fields in advanced-debugging-governance.md) with verdict sufficient repair | local patch | needs first-principles review, and retire invalid responsibility: a local patch needs a retention reason and retirement trigger. For a new non-ordinary repair surface, run the Existence Check in docs/current/AEGIS_MINIMALITY_REFERENCE.md. If retirement involves old code,
external compatibility, or persistent-state risk, compose
anti-entropy-governance; it chooses the retirement path but never grants
destructive authority.
Before editing an overloaded or mixed-purpose owner, complete Pre-Edit Complexity Check and Pre-Edit Owner-Fit Decision (templates in advanced-debugging-governance.md).
Use using-aegis/references/complexity-governance.md for pressure signals.
Do not add new-responsibility in place by default. If the safer boundary
changes the approved shape, update the plan/spec first.
Repair and proportional verification
Implement one owner fix; no bundled “while here” work. Under strict TDD, create the smallest failing test first. With TDD off, a reproduction is diagnostic evidence, not a RED gate or a prerequisite for production edits.
Verification must match the risk:
- local single-owner repair: original reproduction plus focused regression;
- shared/contract/cross-module repair: canonical owner plus affected consumers and compatibility boundary;
- fallback/owner retirement: main-path, lingering-reference, negative, and boundary checks;
- timing/concurrency repair: read
condition-based-waiting.mdonly when evidence identifies polling, sleeps, or race timing as part of the cause; - invalid state crossing several trusted boundaries: read
defense-in-depth.mdonly after the root repair is known and evidence shows a second independent validation boundary is required.
Read advanced-debugging-governance.md before another fix for failed/
persistent / divergent repair or three failures; for unclear/disputed stop /
Layer Stop Card / intervention; or plausible compound root. Closeout triggers:
repair-added patch-shape; multi-site/one-regression;
remaining pattern/anomaly/duplicate/wrong-owner/downstream repair;
uninspected same-symptom fix; open recurrence/unsupported root status;
missing compound topology-specific member/anti-disguise proof;
outside-repo authority; unmigrated
published-contract break; undefined spec; missing permission/info. They route H/T/D;
detail is not causal proof.
For non-trivial debugging with configured workspace support:
python <aegis-workspace-helper> init --root <target-project-root>
python <aegis-workspace-helper> new-work --root <target-project-root> ...
python <aegis-workspace-helper> add-evidence --root <target-project-root> --work <YYYY-MM-DD-slug> ...
python <aegis-workspace-helper> check --root <target-project-root>
Failed attempts use <aegis-workspace-helper> add-attempt; add-evidence is terminal-only.
Fast bug fix or quick bug fix pressure does not skip this: if Ripple Signal Triage fires, record it before editing and verify the canonical owner plus affected downstream path. Records are advisory, not completion authority.
Closure
Always report:
- Repair — cause, owner, smallest change, compatibility, verification.
- Retirement — invalid responsibility status, carrier/capability disposition, retention reason/trigger, removal check.
Confirm the reproduction, same-pattern handling, authority, complexity, and
retirement. Prefix debug logs (e.g. [DEBUG-a4f2]); confirm one-grep removal before close. Confidence: A = direct regression evidence; B = strong evidence
with bounded unknowns; C = partial and not resolved.
Trace Digest may summarize audit evidence; never expose chain-of-thought or
replace root-cause, rule-effect, and verification evidence.
Related Skills
algorithmic-art
177.9kCreating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems.
pptx
177.9kUse this skill any time a .pptx or .potx file is involved in any way — as input, output, or both. This includes: creating slide decks, pitch decks, or presentations; reading, parsing, or extracting text from any .pptx or .potx file (even if the extracted content will be used elsewhere, like in an em…
design
130.2kComprehensive design skill: brand identity, design tokens, UI styling, logo generation (55 styles, Gemini, Atlas Cloud, or MuAPI AI), corporate identity program (50 deliverables, CIP mockups), HTML presentations (Chart.js), banner design (22 styles, social/ads/web/print), icon design (15 styles, SVG…
ui-ux-pro-max
130.2kUI/UX design intelligence for web, mobile, and desktop. This skill should be used when designing, building, reviewing, or fixing interfaces, including pages, components, design systems, accessibility, interaction, responsive layout, typography, color, charts, and stack-specific UI implementation.
Languages
Trust signals
From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.
