AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Systematic Debugging

skill-sethgammon-armory-systematic-debugging · by SethGammon

>-

No reviews yet
0 installs
35 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-sethgammon-armory-systematic-debugging

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-sethgammon-armory-systematic-debugging)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
6mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Systematic Debugging? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

/systematic-debugging — Root Cause Before Fix

Identity

/systematic-debugging enforces one rule: NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST.

Most debugging failures come from guessing. This skill forces a structured approach: observe → hypothesize → verify → fix. The fix is always the last step, never the first.

Protocol

Phase 1: OBSERVATION & REPRODUCTION

  1. Read the error message, stack trace, or bug description thoroughly
  2. Reproduce the issue:
  • If it's a type error: run typecheck and read the full error
  • If it's a runtime error: identify the triggering conditions
  • If it's a behavioral bug: document expected vs actual behavior
  1. Isolate the failing component/function:
  • What file? What function? What line?
  • What are the inputs when it fails?
  • Does it fail consistently or intermittently?

Output: A clear problem statement: "{Component} does {X} when it should do {Y}, triggered by {condition}"

Phase 2: HYPOTHESIS & VERIFICATION

  1. Formulate up to 3 hypotheses for WHY the bug exists:
  • H1: {most likely cause} — because {evidence}
  • H2: {second candidate} — because {evidence}
  • H3: {third candidate} — because {evidence}
  1. For each hypothesis, define a verification step:
  • Add a console.log / diagnostic read / breakpoint
  • Check a specific value at a specific point
  • DO NOT change any logic yet — only observe
  1. Run the verification:
  • Which hypothesis was confirmed?
  • Which were eliminated?
  • If none confirmed: formulate new hypotheses with the new information

CRITICAL: Do not skip this phase. Do not "just try" a fix. Verify first.

Phase 3: ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

Once a hypothesis is confirmed:

  1. Explain WHY the bug happens, not just WHERE:
  • Trace the data flow backward from the symptom to the source
  • Identify the specific incorrect assumption or logic error
  • Document the causal chain:

"A calls B with X, B assumes X > 0, but A passes -1 when {condition}"

  1. Check for related occurrences:
  • Is this pattern used elsewhere? Could the same bug exist in similar code?
  • Is there a systemic issue (e.g., missing validation at a boundary)?

Output: Root cause statement: "The bug occurs because {cause}. This happens when {trigger}."

Phase 4: IMPLEMENTATION

  1. Write a failing test case that reproduces the bug (if test framework exists)
  2. Apply the minimal fix — change only what's necessary to resolve the root cause
  3. Verify the fix:
  • Test case now passes
  • Typecheck passes
  • No regressions in related functionality
  1. If the root cause analysis revealed related occurrences, fix those too

Emergency Stop Rule

If a fix fails TWICE: STOP.

Do not try a third guess. The root cause analysis was wrong. Either:

  • Go back to Phase 2 with new hypotheses
  • Ask the user for more context about the system's intended behavior
  • Check if there's a higher-level architectural issue

Three failed fixes in a row means you're guessing, not debugging.

What This Skill Prevents

  • Shotgun debugging — changing random things until the error goes away
  • Symptom fixing — patching the output without understanding the cause
  • Fix cascades — one bad fix creating three new bugs
  • Silent regressions — fixing one path while breaking another

Quality Gates

  • A clear problem statement exists before any hypothesis is formed
  • At least one hypothesis was verified (not assumed) before the fix was written
  • The fix addresses the root cause, not just the symptom
  • Typecheck passes after the fix with no new errors
  • If related occurrences were found, they were fixed or documented

Fringe Cases

Bug is intermittent: Document the triggering conditions as precisely as possible. Reproduce it at least once before forming hypotheses. If it can't be reproduced, stop at Phase 1 and ask for more context.

Two fix attempts have already failed: Invoke the Emergency Stop Rule. Return to Phase 2 with new hypotheses. Do not try a third guess without re-reading the relevant code.

No test framework exists: Skip the "write a failing test" step in Phase 4. Verify the fix manually and document how to reproduce the original bug for future reference.

Error is in a dependency or generated file: Document the root cause but do not modify the dependency. Propose a workaround in the consuming code instead.

Exit Protocol

---HANDOFF---
- Bug: {problem statement}
- Root cause: {one-line cause}
- Fix: {what was changed}
- Verified: {typecheck + tests passing}
- Related: {any similar patterns found and fixed}
---

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.