CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes

57

Quality

65%

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 ./skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

66%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 strong, well-sequenced debugging playbook with concrete instrumentation examples and rigorous feedback loops, undermined by broken sibling-file references that fail progressive disclosure and by some repetitive motivational padding.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced sibling files (root-cause-tracing.md, defense-in-depth.md, condition-based-waiting.md) or remove the references — broken links make the bundle unnavigable.

Trim redundant sections ('Iron Law', 'Red Flags', 'Common Rationalizations', 'Real-World Impact') that restate 'investigate before fixing'; fold the essential bits into the phases.

Cut motivational figures ('first-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%') unless sourced, or move them to a brief closing line.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient prose with useful concrete examples, but repeated emphatic restatements ('ALWAYS find root cause', the 'Iron Law', 'Red Flags', 'Common Rationalizations', 'Real-World Impact') restate the same idea several times and could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete executable guidance — real bash instrumentation snippets, specific steps per phase, and precise retry-count thresholds — with only minor gaps where guidance is advisory rather than runnable.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Four clearly sequenced phases with explicit must-complete-before-proceeding checkpoints, a feedback loop (hypothesis fails → new hypothesis, 3+ fixes → question architecture), and explicit validation criteria in the Quick Reference table.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body references three sibling files (root-cause-tracing.md, defense-in-depth.md, condition-based-waiting.md) and two other skills, but none of those files exist in the bundle, so the references are broken and navigation is impossible.

2 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

65%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 is concise and uses a clear, natural trigger clause ('Use when encountering any bug... before proposing fixes'), but it never states what the skill actually does — it relies entirely on the implied act of debugging.

Suggestions

Add a concrete 'what' clause naming the technique, e.g. 'Run a four-phase root-cause investigation (reproduce, pattern-match, hypothesize, fix) before proposing fixes.'

Broaden trigger terms with common synonyms users say: 'error', 'crash', 'stack trace', 'failing test', 'production incident'.

Keep third-person voice but state the deliverable, not just the precondition.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (debugging bugs/failures) but provides no concrete actions — only a single vague act 'encountering any bug, test failure... before proposing fixes' that describes the trigger, not what the skill does.

2 / 5

Completeness

Has an explicit 'when' ('Use when encountering any bug, test failure...') but the 'what' is only implied (systematic debugging) rather than concretely stated, leaving it slightly short of a fully explicit what+when.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms 'bug, test failure, unexpected behavior' are phrases users would say, though it omits synonyms like 'error', 'crash', or 'stack trace' that would round out coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger 'before proposing fixes' carves a clear niche around debugging-before-fixing, with only minor overlap risk with general coding or TDD skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
lucianghinda/superpowers-ruby
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.