CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes - four-phase framework (root cause investigation, pattern analysis, hypothesis testing, implementation) that ensures understanding before attempting solutions

72

Quality

88%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

A well-structured, actionable debugging methodology with excellent workflow sequencing and validation feedback loops. Its main weakness is token efficiency: repetitive motivational/self-check sections inflate length, and everything lives in one monolithic file with no progressive disclosure into reference materials.

Suggestions

Consolidate the three overlapping self-correction sections ('Red Flags', 'Common Rationalizations', 'your human partner's Signals') into a single 'When to STOP and return to Phase 1' section to cut repetition and token cost.

Trim repeated disciplinary framing ('The Iron Law', 'Violating the letter... is violating the spirit', standalone STOP blocks) since the phased workflow and checkpoints already enforce the discipline.

Move the detailed multi-component instrumentation example and the rationalizations table into a reference file (e.g. references/diagnostic-patterns.md) linked from a leaner SKILL.md overview to improve progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~310-line body is mostly purposeful but padded with repetitive disciplinary framing — three overlapping self-check sections ('Red Flags', 'Common Rationalizations', 'your human partner's Signals') and repeated STOP/Iron-Law admonitions that could be consolidated. It avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, keeping it above a 1.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable guidance: an actual bash instrumentation example (security list-keychains, codesign --sign --verbose=4, env | grep) and specific commands (git diff, recent commits) plus discrete procedural steps per phase, satisfying the actionable-instruction bar for a non-code skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four phases are explicitly sequenced ('You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next') with validation checkpoints and feedback loops: Phase 3 'Verify Before Continuing', Phase 4 'Verify Fix', and the '<3 fixes return to Phase 1 / >=3 question architecture' escalation rule.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clearly organized, but the skill is a single 310-line monolithic file with all detail inline and no bundle/reference files to split into; the only cross-links point to other skills (root-cause-tracing, test-driven-development), not progressively-disclosed material for this skill. It exceeds the 'under 50 lines' simple-skill allowance for a 3.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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

A strong, well-formed description: it states the trigger conditions explicitly, names the concrete four-phase methodology, and stays in the correct third-person imperative voice without fluff. It clearly answers both what the skill does and when to invoke it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions via the named four-phase framework ('root cause investigation, pattern analysis, hypothesis testing, implementation'), matching the anchor for enumerating several specific activities rather than a vague single action.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('four-phase framework ... that ensures understanding before attempting solutions') and when ('Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes'), with an explicit Use-when clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-facing terms 'bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior' give good coverage of phrasings a user would actually say, rather than technical jargon.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear debugging niche anchored on 'before proposing fixes', with triggers (bug/test failure/unexpected behavior) unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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
microsoft/FluidFramework
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.