Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索external-servicegithub未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

debugging-protocol调试协议

Agent Skill

debugging-protocol 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

2,471

周安装

99

GitHub Stars

2

下载量

1,136
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

2

许可证

unknown

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:debugging-protocol(调试协议)
来源仓库:https://github.com/jwilger/agent-skills
仓库路径:skills/debugging-protocol
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/jwilger/agent-skills --skill debugging-protocol
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/jwilger/agent-skills --skill debugging-protocol

简介

该技能建立四阶段调试纪律,确保理解问题本质后再尝试修复方案。

  • 适用于任何需要避免盲目修改代码的技术问题场景。
  • 通过 GitHub 仓库安装,需严格遵守'无调查不修复'的核心原则。
  • 建议将每次失败尝试计入三次阈值,超限时重新评估整体策略。
  • debugging-protocol 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Debugging Protocol

Value: Feedback -- systematic investigation produces understanding. Understanding produces correct fixes. Correct fixes prevent recurrence. Skipping investigation produces symptom fixes that hide bugs.

Purpose

Teaches a disciplined 4-phase debugging process that enforces root cause analysis before any fix attempt. Prevents the most common debugging failure mode: jumping to a fix without understanding why the problem exists.

Practices

The Iron Law: No Fixes Without Investigation

Never change code to fix a bug until you have completed root cause investigation. When you see an error and immediately know the fix, that is exactly when you are most likely to be wrong. Investigate first.

Do:

  • Read the complete error message and stack trace before doing anything else
  • Reproduce the bug consistently before investigating
  • Understand WHY something is broken, not just WHAT is broken

Do not:

  • Add a null check because you see a null pointer error (symptom fix)
  • Try "a few things" to see what sticks (random debugging)
  • Skip investigation because "this is an easy one"

Phase 1: Understand the Failure

Gather facts. Do not interpret yet.

  1. Read the full error message -- every line, not just the first
  2. Identify the exact file and line where the failure occurs
  3. Reproduce the failure consistently (if it does not reproduce, that is important information)
  4. Check recent changes: git log --oneline -10 and git diff
  5. Note the data flow: where does the bad value come from?

Output: A clear statement of what is happening, where, and since when.

Phase 2: Find Working Examples

Compare broken against working. The difference is the bug.

  1. Find similar code that works correctly
  2. Compare setup, inputs, state, and configuration
  3. Identify what differs between the working and failing case
  4. Check dependencies: did a library update? Did an environment change?

Output: A specific difference between working and failing cases.

Phase 3: Test One Hypothesis

Form a single, explicit hypothesis. Test it with one change. Learn from the result.

  1. State the hypothesis: "I believe the bug is caused by [X] because [evidence]"
  2. Make ONE change to test it
  3. Observe the result
  4. If the hypothesis is wrong, UNDO the change completely
  5. Form a new hypothesis incorporating what you learned

Do not change multiple things at once. If you change the import, the type, and the logic simultaneously, you cannot know which change mattered.

Output: Confirmed or refuted hypothesis with evidence.

Phase 4: Fix and Verify

Fix with confidence because you understand the root cause.

  1. Write a failing test that reproduces the bug (if one does not already exist)
  2. Implement the fix targeting the root cause identified in Phase 3
  3. Verify: the new test passes, all existing tests still pass
  4. Confirm you fixed the cause, not the symptom

Output: A fix backed by a test, with all tests green.

Escalation: Three Strikes Rule

If three fix attempts fail, stop. The problem is not what you think it is.

After the third failure:

  1. Stop attempting fixes entirely
  2. Document what you tried and why each attempt failed
  3. Question your assumptions: wrong abstraction? Wrong domain model? Wrong problem entirely?
  4. Seek a broader perspective -- architecture review, domain expert, or escalate to the user

Three failed fixes almost always signal a design problem, not a code problem. More code fixes will not help.

Example:

Attempt 1: Add caching (hypothesis: slow queries) -> Still slow
Attempt 2: Add index (hypothesis: missing index) -> Still slow
Attempt 3: Eager loading (hypothesis: N+1) -> Still slow
STOP. Profile the system.
Result: 90% of time in external API call. Not a database problem at all.

Enforcement Note

  • Standalone mode: Advisory. The Iron Law is self-enforced.
  • Pipeline mode: Gating. Debugging evidence is required before fix commits pass the TDD gate.

Hard constraints:

  • Iron Law (investigate before fix): [H]
  • Three Strikes escalation: [RP]

Constraints

  • Iron Law: The temptation to skip investigation is strongest when the fix seems obvious. That is exactly when investigation is most valuable -- because "obvious" fixes that are wrong waste more time than investigation would have cost. If you're reasoning about why THIS bug is the exception that doesn't need investigation, you're violating the Iron Law.
  • Three Strikes: After three failed hypotheses, the problem is not what you think it is. "Stop" means stop fixing and return to investigation. It does not mean stop working entirely. Re-examine your assumptions, widen your investigation, look at adjacent systems. If you still can't identify the root cause, escalate.
  • Undo failed hypotheses: "Undo completely" means the codebase returns to exactly the state before the hypothesis was tested. Not "mostly undone with a few improvements kept." Not "undone in the main file but I left the debug logging." Every change from the failed hypothesis is reverted.

Verification

After debugging guided by this skill, verify:

  • Completed Phase 1 investigation before any code changes
  • Read the complete error message (not just the first line)
  • Reproduced the bug consistently
  • Found a working example to compare against
  • Stated an explicit hypothesis before each fix attempt
  • Made only one change per hypothesis test
  • Undid failed hypotheses before trying new ones
  • Wrote or confirmed a failing test before implementing the fix
  • Verified all tests pass after the fix
  • Did not exceed three fix attempts without escalating

If any criterion is not met, revisit the relevant phase.

Dependencies

This skill works standalone with no required dependencies. It integrates with:

  • tdd: When a test fails unexpectedly during TDD, this skill guides investigation before modifying code
  • user-input-protocol: When debugging reaches an ambiguous decision point, pause and ask the user rather than guessing
  • domain-modeling: If three fixes fail, the root cause may be a domain modeling problem -- escalate to domain review

Missing a dependency? Install with:

npx skills add jwilger/agent-skills --skill tdd

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

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

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

Codex

34.33%
按下载量换算390

Claude

32.86%
按下载量换算373

Cursor

19.44%
按下载量换算221

Gemini CLI

9.34%
按下载量换算106

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

external-service

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

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。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