Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计提醒

compound-eng-debugging复合工程调试

Agent Skill

compound-eng-debugging 用于记录任务执行中的错误、用户纠正、经验和能力缺口,适合在 OpenClaw 中希望让 Agent 持续沉淀问题、修正和最佳实践时使用。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

10,496

周安装

433

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

3,429
OpenClaw

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

2

许可证

MIT-0

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:compound-eng-debugging(复合工程调试)
来源仓库:https://github.com/iliaal/compound-eng-debugging
安装命令:
openclaw skills install compound-eng-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 OpenClaw 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。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install compound-eng-debugging

简介

compound-eng-debugging 系统性根本原因调试工具,支持错误日志分析与验证修复方案。

  • 适用于 OpenClaw 中处理堆栈跟踪、片状测试失败或回归问题等未预期情况。
  • 提供分类诊断流程,协助定位代码缺陷与环境配置问题。
  • 安装需确认项目日志可读权限,建议结合版本控制系统追溯变更历史。
  • 涉及生产环境修复时,应优先 dry-run 并备份关键数据,防止误操作扩大影响。

SKILL.md

name
ia-debugging
class
discipline
description
>-

Debugging

The Iron Law

Never propose a fix without first identifying the root cause. "Quick fix now, investigate later" is forbidden -- it creates harder bugs. This applies ESPECIALLY under time pressure, when "just one quick fix" seems obvious, or when multiple fixes have already failed. Those are the moments this process matters most.

Trivially obvious bugs are their own root cause -- state the cause and fix directly. A bug is trivially obvious only when the cause is in the error message (e.g., ModuleNotFoundError: no module named foo, a typo in a string literal). If the error shows where something fails but not why (e.g., TypeError: Cannot read 'id' of undefined), it is not trivially obvious -- investigate why the value is undefined.

Root Cause Analysis

Root cause identification is the core deliverable of debugging -- not the fix itself.

  • Trace backward: Start at the symptom, walk the call chain in reverse to find where behavior diverges from expectation
  • Differential analysis: Compare working vs broken state across dimensions (code version, data, environment, timing, configuration)
  • Regression hunting: Use git bisect to pinpoint the exact commit that introduced the issue
  • Evidence-based: Document root cause with file:line references, log output, and concrete reproduction proof. Root cause = the earliest point where behavior diverged from expectation, stated with evidence at least two levels deep (not just "it failed here" but "it failed here because X was null, and X was null because Y never set it")
  • Competing hypotheses: When the cause is ambiguous, generate multiple hypotheses and rank by evidence strength (see Escalation section below)

Environment Diagnostics

Capture environment state with bash collect-diagnostics.sh (script). Use during differential analysis or attach to bug reports. See specialized-patterns.md for details.

Process

0. Read the error. Read the full error message, stack trace, and line numbers before doing anything. Error messages frequently contain the exact fix. Don't skim -- read the entire output.

1. Reproduce -- make the bug consistent. If intermittent, run N times under stress or simulate poor conditions (slow network, low memory) until it triggers reliably.

2. Form initial hypotheses -- before investigating broadly, form 2-3 hypotheses based on the reproduction. What are the most likely causes given the symptoms? This focuses the investigation on plausible paths rather than searching aimlessly.

3. Reduce -- strip the reproduction to the minimal failing case. Remove unrelated code, data, and configuration until removing one more piece makes the bug disappear. That remaining piece is the trigger.

4. Investigate -- trace backward through the call chain from the symptom. Compare working vs broken state using a differential table (environment, version, data, timing -- what changed?).

Multi-component systems (CI -> build -> deploy, API -> service -> DB): before proposing fixes, instrument each component boundary:

  • Log what data enters the component
  • Log what data exits the component
  • Verify environment/config propagation across the boundary

Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks, then investigate that specific component. Use console.error() (not logger, which may be suppressed in tests). Log BEFORE the dangerous operation, not after it fails. Include context: cwd, env vars, new Error().stack.

Pre-existing failure proof: Before claiming a test failure is "not related to our changes," prove it. Run git stash && [test command] on clean state to confirm the failure exists on the base branch. Pre-existing without receipts is a lazy claim.

Before external searches (web, docs, forums): strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL fragments, and customer data from the query. Raw stack traces leak privacy and return noise.

5. Hypothesize and test -- one change at a time. If a hypothesis is wrong, fully revert before testing the next. Use git bisect to find regressions efficiently. Scope lock: after forming a hypothesis, identify the narrowest affected directory or file set. Do not edit code outside that scope during the debug session. If the fix requires changes elsewhere, update the hypothesis first.

6. Fix and verify -- create a failing test FIRST, then fix. Run the test. Confirm the original reproduction case passes. No completion claims without fresh verification evidence (see ia-verification-before-completion).

Debug Report

Emit after every resolved bug. For non-trivial production bugs, also write a full Postmortem (see below).

After resolving, output a structured report:

SYMPTOM:    [What was observed]
ROOT CAUSE: [Why it happened -- file:line with evidence]
FIX:        [What changed]
EVIDENCE:   [Verification output proving the fix]
REGRESSION: [Test added to prevent recurrence]
RELATED:    [Prior bugs in same area, known issues, architectural notes]
STATUS:     DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT (definitions in `ia-verification-before-completion`)

Three-Fix Threshold

After 3 failed fix attempts, STOP. An attempt = one complete hypothesis-test cycle (form hypothesis, make minimal change, verify). The problem is likely architectural, not a surface bug. Escalate to the user before attempting further fixes. Step back and question assumptions about how the system works. Read the actual code path end-to-end instead of spot-checking.

Architectural problem indicators -- signals the bug is structural, not a surface fix:

  • Each fix reveals new shared state or coupling you didn't expect
  • Fixes require massive refactoring to implement correctly
  • Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere in the system

No root cause found: If investigation is exhausted without a clear root cause, say so explicitly. Document what was checked, what was ruled out, and what instrumentation to add for next occurrence. An honest "unknown" with good diagnostics beats a fabricated cause.

Escalation: Competing Hypotheses

When the cause is unclear across multiple components, use Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). Generate hypotheses across failure categories, collect evidence FOR and AGAINST each, rank by confidence, and investigate the strongest first.

See competing-hypotheses.md for the full methodology: six failure categories, evidence strength scale, confidence scoring, and anti-patterns.

Intermittent Issues

For race conditions, deadlocks, resource exhaustion, and timing-dependent bugs, see specialized-patterns.md. Key signals: shared mutable state, check-then-act, circular lock acquisition, connection pool exhaustion under load.

Defense-in-Depth Validation

After fixing, validate at every layer -- not just where the bug appeared. See defense-in-depth.md for the four-layer pattern (entry, business logic, environment, instrumentation) with examples.

Bug Triage

When multiple bugs exist, prioritize by:

  • Severity (data loss > crash > wrong output > cosmetic) separately from Priority (blocking release > customer-facing > internal)
  • Reproducibility: always > sometimes > once. "Sometimes" bugs need instrumentation before fixing.
  • Quick wins: if a fix is < 5 minutes and unblocks others, do it first

Common Patterns

  • Async ordering -- missing await, unhandled promise rejection, callback firing before setup completes. The temporal gap between setup and callback is where bugs hide.
  • Stale state -- cached values, stale closures, outdated config, old build artifacts. When behavior contradicts the code you're reading, verify you're running what you think you're running.
  • Recurring fix site -- if git log shows 3+ prior fixes in the same file, the file needs redesign, not another patch. Escalate as architectural smell.

Root Cause Tracing

When a bug manifests deep in the call stack, resist fixing where the error appears. Trace backward through the call chain to find the original trigger, then fix at the source. See root-cause-tracing.md for the full technique with stack instrumentation patterns and test pollution detection.

Pattern Comparison

When the cause isn't obvious, find working similar code in the codebase and compare it structurally with the broken path. Read the working reference implementation completely -- don't skim. List every difference between working and broken, however small. Don't assume any difference can't matter. The bug is in one of them.

Anti-Patterns and Red Flags

When you catch yourself doing or thinking these things, stop and return to Step 1 (Reproduce):

What You're Doing / ThinkingWhat It Really Means
Shotgun debugging / "I see the problem, let me fix it" / "It's probably X"Reasoning is not evidence. Form a hypothesis, make one change, test, revert if wrong. Trace the actual execution path.
Ignoring intermittent failures ("works on my machine")Instrument and reproduce under load. Isolation success doesn't explain integration failure.
"I'll clean up the debugging later"Remove diagnostic code now or it ships to production.
"This failure is pre-existing, not related to our changes"Prove it: run the test suite on the base branch. No receipts = no claim.
"The test is wrong, not the code"Verify before dismissing. Read the test's intent. If the test is genuinely wrong, fix it with a clear rationale, not a silent update.
"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern"Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read the working example completely and apply it exactly.

See specialized-patterns.md for anti-pattern signals and specialized debugging patterns.

Verify

  • Root cause identified with file:line evidence (not just "it failed here")
  • Regression test exists and fails without the fix, passes with it
  • Debug Report emitted with all seven fields (SYMPTOM, ROOT CAUSE, FIX, EVIDENCE, REGRESSION, RELATED, STATUS)
  • No diagnostic instrumentation left in code (git diff shows no leftover logging)

Integration

This skill is referenced by:

  • /ia-work -- during task execution for bug investigation
  • ia-writing-tests -- creating failing tests to reproduce bugs
  • ia-verification-before-completion -- before claiming a bug is fixed
  • ia-bug-reproduction-validator agent -- follows Root Cause Analysis methodology
  • ia-infrastructure-engineer agent -- follows Postmortem template for production incidents
  • ia-reproduce-bug command -- automated bug reproduction workflow

Postmortem

For non-trivial production bugs, write a lightweight postmortem (timeline, root cause, impact, fix, prevention). See specialized-patterns.md for the template.

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

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

OpenClaw

98.15%
按下载量换算3,366

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

可疑

Static analysis

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。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills