Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读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

1,273

周安装

52

GitHub Stars

8

下载量

412
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/bbeierle12/skill-mcp-claude
仓库路径:skills/systematic-debugging
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/bbeierle12/skill-mcp-claude --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/bbeierle12/skill-mcp-claude --skill systematic-debugging

简介

提供系统化调试方法论,避免盲目猜测并聚焦问题根源排查。

  • 适用于日志分析、环境验证和最小复现案例构建等关键步骤。
  • 强调三次修复失败后重新评估架构合理性的风险控制机制。
  • 安装后可在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中引导用户完成诊断流程。
  • 建议结合具体错误码和堆栈信息制定针对性排查路径。

SKILL.md

Systematic Debugging

Core Principle

Don't guess. Investigate systematically.

After 3 failed fix attempts, STOP and question the architecture.

Phase 1: Understand the Problem

Gather Information

  1. What is the expected behavior?
  2. What is the actual behavior?
  3. When did it start failing?
  4. What changed recently?

Reproduce Consistently

  • Create minimal reproduction case
  • Document exact steps to reproduce
  • Identify if it's deterministic or intermittent

Check the Obvious First

  • Is it plugged in? (Services running, dependencies installed)
  • Are you in the right environment?
  • Did you save the file?
  • Is the cache cleared?

Phase 2: Root Cause Tracing

Backward Tracing Technique

  1. Where does the bad value appear?
  2. What called this with the bad value?
  3. Keep tracing up until you find the source
  4. Fix at source, not at symptom

Find Working Examples

  • Locate similar working code in same codebase
  • What works that's similar to what's broken?
  • Compare against references

Identify Differences

  • What's different between working and broken?
  • List every difference, however small
  • Don't assume "that can't matter"

Phase 3: Form Hypothesis

Scientific Method

  1. Form a SINGLE hypothesis
  2. Predict what you'd see if hypothesis is true
  3. Design a test to verify
  4. Run the test
  5. If wrong, form new hypothesis based on new data

Don't Multi-Hypothesis

  • One hypothesis at a time
  • Test it completely before moving on
  • Don't mix debugging approaches

Phase 4: Implement Fix

Write Failing Test First

  • Test that reproduces the bug
  • Test should fail before fix
  • Test should pass after fix

Single Fix at a Time

  • ONE change only
  • No "while I'm here" improvements
  • No bundled refactoring

Verify Completely

  • Original test passes
  • No other tests broken
  • Issue actually resolved
  • Edge cases covered

Phase 5: If Fix Doesn't Work

After Each Failed Attempt

  1. STOP
  2. Count: How many fixes have you tried?
  3. If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
  4. If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture

After 3+ Failed Fixes

Pattern indicating architectural problem:

  • Each fix reveals new problems elsewhere
  • Fixes require "massive refactoring"
  • Each fix creates new symptoms

STOP and ask:

  • Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
  • Is this the right abstraction?
  • Should this be redesigned?

Debugging Tools

Logging Strategy

// Add context to logs
console.log('[ComponentName] methodName:', {
  input,
  state: relevantState,
  timestamp: Date.now()
});

Binary Search Debugging

  1. Add log at midpoint of suspect code
  2. Determine if bug is before or after
  3. Repeat until isolated

Rubber Duck Debugging

Explain the problem out loud:

  • What should happen?
  • What actually happens?
  • What did I try?
  • What assumptions am I making?

Common Pitfalls

Avoid These Mistakes

  • Changing multiple things at once
  • Assuming you know the cause
  • Fixing symptoms instead of root cause
  • Not verifying the fix actually works
  • Not adding regression tests

Red Flags

  • "It works on my machine"
  • "It was working yesterday"
  • "I didn't change anything"
  • "That can't be the problem"

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

30.04%
按下载量换算124

OpenCode

23.73%
按下载量换算98

windsurf

17.52%
按下载量换算72

Antigravity

13.35%
按下载量换算55

Gemini CLI

7.95%
按下载量换算33

Codex

4.06%
按下载量换算17

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

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。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills