CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

debugging-strategies

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

44

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/debugging-strategies/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A well-structured, token-efficient overview with good use/anti-use trigger sections, but the instructional core stays at the level of named techniques without executable specifics, and the referenced playbook file is missing from the bundle. The main gaps are operational detail and a broken reference.

Suggestions

Fix the dangling reference: either create `resources/implementation-playbook.md` with the promised patterns/checklists or remove both mentions (in Instructions and Resources), since the file does not exist in the bundle.

Add concrete, executable guidance for at least the core steps — e.g., specific log-capture commands, an example hypothesis/experiment template, or a worked binary-search narrowing example.

Make verification an explicit checkpoint with a feedback loop: what to do when a hypothesis is disproved, and criteria for confirming the fix (e.g., reproduce before/after, confirm the symptom disappears).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean — terse bullets, no concept explanations, assumes Claude's competence — with one trimmable flaw: the opening line 'Transform debugging from frustrating guesswork into systematic problem-solving...' duplicates the frontmatter description verbatim and adds no operational value. Not a 5 because that padded tagline does not earn its tokens; well above anchor 3 since everything else is efficient.

4 / 5

Actionability

The instructions name concrete methods ('capture logs, traces, and environment details', 'design controlled experiments', 'binary search and targeted instrumentation') but give no executable specifics — no commands, tools, or examples of how to capture signals or structure an experiment. As an instruction-only skill this is more than anchor 2's 'minimal high-level hints', but missing key details keep it below anchor 4.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A coherent sequence is present (reproduce → hypothesize/experiment → narrow → document/verify) with verification mentioned, but 'Document findings and verify the fix' is an implicit checkpoint with no detail, and there is no feedback loop for when a hypothesis fails or when to stop. Not a 4 because, unlike anchor 4, there are no concrete commands and checkpoints remain implicit; better than anchor 2 since the sequence is clear and sensible.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The section structure is clean (Use when / Do not use / Instructions / Resources) and the reference to `resources/implementation-playbook.md` is clearly signaled and one level deep — but that file does not exist in the bundle, so the promised detailed playbooks are unreachable and navigation breaks exactly where depth is promised. This dangling reference is more than a 'minor organization gap' (ruling out 4), while the good section organization rules out 2.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

36%Weight 40%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.

The description reads as marketing copy: it names the debugging domain but provides no concrete actions, no 'use when' trigger guidance, and no synonyms beyond 'debugging' itself. It would benefit most from a concrete capability list and an explicit trigger clause.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases, e.g., 'Use when tracking down bugs, troubleshooting errors, analyzing stack traces, or investigating production incidents.'

Replace buzzwords ('proven strategies, powerful tools, methodical approaches') with concrete capabilities such as 'Reproduce issues, form and test hypotheses, narrow scope with binary search, analyze crash dumps and stack traces.'

Include natural trigger synonyms (troubleshooting, fixing bugs, performance issues, distributed systems) to improve both trigger quality and distinctiveness from general software-development skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("debugging") but the actions are generic marketing language — "proven strategies, powerful tools, and methodical approaches" — with no concrete capabilities. It is not a 1 because the domain and intent are named; it is not a 3 because no concrete action (like 'analyze crash dumps' or 'reproduce issues') is stated.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is vague aspirational framing ('Transform debugging from frustrating guesswork into systematic problem-solving') with no concrete capability, and the 'when' is entirely absent — no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which the guidelines cap at 3 and the vague 'what' pushes to anchor 2. Not a 3 because anchor 3 requires a clear 'what', which this buzzword-heavy framing is not.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"debugging" is the single natural keyword users would say, and it is the exact core term rather than jargon, but common variations and synonyms ("troubleshooting", "fixing bugs", "stack traces", "errors", "performance issues") are absent. Better than anchor 2 ('one or two generic keywords') since 'debugging' is the precise natural phrase, but short of anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The debugging niche is somewhat specific, but with only the generic term 'debugging' and vague phrases like 'powerful tools', it could overlap with general troubleshooting or software-development skills. Not a 4 because there are no distinct trigger phrases to differentiate it from closely related skills.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Path

plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/debugging-strategies/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.