debugging-strategies

Transform debugging from frustrating guesswork into systematic problem-solving with proven strategies, powerful tools, and methodical approaches.

Quality

31%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/debugging-strategies/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is debugging-strategies in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

Quality

Content

42%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill is a thin overview that reads more like a table of contents than actionable guidance. It lacks concrete examples, specific commands or tools, and executable steps that would make it useful for debugging. The content delegates almost everything to a referenced playbook that isn't provided, leaving the SKILL.md itself too abstract to be independently valuable.

Suggestions

Add at least one concrete, executable debugging example (e.g., a specific command to capture a stack trace, a code snippet for adding targeted logging, or a bisect workflow).

Include specific tool recommendations with usage examples (e.g., `gdb`, `strace`, `pdb`, browser DevTools commands) rather than abstract directives like 'capture logs and traces'.

Add validation checkpoints to the workflow, such as 'Confirm the bug reproduces before proceeding' and 'Verify the fix by re-running the reproduction case and checking that the symptom is gone'.

Provide the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` bundle file, or inline the most critical debugging patterns so the skill is useful even without the external reference.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The opening line repeats the description verbatim, and the 'Use this skill when' / 'Do not use this skill when' sections add moderate padding. The instructions themselves are lean but the surrounding content could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	The instructions are high-level directives ('Form hypotheses and design controlled experiments', 'Narrow scope with binary search') without any concrete code, commands, tool invocations, or specific examples. It reads more like abstract advice than executable guidance.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	There is a rough sequence (reproduce → hypothesize → narrow → document → verify), but steps lack specificity, have no validation checkpoints, and provide no feedback loops for when a hypothesis is wrong or a fix doesn't hold.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references `resources/implementation-playbook.md` for detailed content, which is a reasonable one-level-deep reference. However, no bundle file was provided to verify the reference exists, and the SKILL.md itself is so thin that it's unclear whether the referenced file actually contains the substance needed.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Description

20%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description reads like a marketing slogan rather than a functional skill description. It is filled with vague buzzwords ('proven strategies', 'powerful tools', 'methodical approaches') but lacks any concrete actions, specific trigger terms, or a 'Use when...' clause. It would be very difficult for Claude to reliably select this skill from a pool of available skills.

Suggestions

Replace vague buzzwords with concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Analyzes error messages, inspects stack traces, sets breakpoints, and identifies root causes in code.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases, e.g., 'Use when the user encounters bugs, errors, exceptions, crashes, or unexpected behavior in their code.'

Include specific trigger terms and synonyms users would naturally say, such as 'bug', 'error', 'exception', 'stack trace', 'crash', 'not working', 'unexpected behavior'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Proven strategies, powerful tools, and methodical approaches' are pure abstract buzzwords with no specifics about what the skill actually does (e.g., set breakpoints, analyze stack traces, inspect variables).	1 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is extremely vague (no concrete capabilities listed), and there is no 'when' clause at all. The description reads as a marketing tagline rather than a functional description that tells Claude when to select this skill.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The word 'debugging' is a relevant natural keyword users might say, but beyond that there are no other useful trigger terms—no mention of errors, exceptions, stack traces, logs, breakpoints, or specific languages/tools.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Debugging' is a very broad domain that could overlap with many other skills (code review, error handling, testing, logging). The description provides no specifics to narrow its scope or distinguish it from related skills.	2 / 5
	Total	7 / 20 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: skills/debugging-strategies/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.