systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:projectbluefin/dakota --skill systematic-debugging63
Quality
53%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.opencode/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.mdDiscovery
22%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 critically fails to explain what the skill actually does - it only specifies when to use it. While it includes some useful trigger terms around bugs and test failures, the complete absence of capability information makes it impossible for Claude to understand what actions this skill enables. The description reads more like a usage note than a skill description.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Systematically diagnoses root causes of bugs through code analysis, log inspection, and hypothesis testing' or 'Guides structured debugging workflow including reproduction steps, isolation, and verification'
Expand trigger terms to include common variations: 'error', 'crash', 'broken', 'not working', 'debug', 'failing', 'exception', 'issue'
Restructure to lead with capabilities, then follow with 'Use when...' clause: '[What it does]. Use when encountering bugs, test failures, errors, or unexpected behavior.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions - it only describes when to use the skill ('encountering any bug, test failure') but never states what the skill actually does. 'Before proposing fixes' implies some diagnostic action but doesn't specify it. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description answers 'when' (encountering bugs/failures) but completely fails to answer 'what does this do'. There's no indication of the skill's actual capabilities or actions it performs. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some natural keywords users might say: 'bug', 'test failure', 'unexpected behavior'. However, missing common variations like 'error', 'crash', 'broken', 'not working', 'debug', 'failing tests'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The phrase 'any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior' is extremely broad and could overlap with debugging skills, testing skills, error handling skills, or code review skills. The 'before proposing fixes' qualifier adds some distinction but remains vague. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured debugging skill with excellent workflow clarity and actionability. The four-phase approach with explicit validation checkpoints and escalation criteria provides clear guidance. Minor verbosity in redundant warning sections and overlapping tables prevents a perfect conciseness score, but the content is highly practical and immediately usable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but includes some redundancy (multiple tables restating similar concepts, repeated 'STOP' warnings). The rationalization table and red flags section overlap significantly. Could be tightened while preserving clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance with specific bash examples for diagnostic instrumentation, clear phase-by-phase instructions, and explicit decision criteria (e.g., '≥3 fixes = question architecture'). The multi-layer debugging example is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with explicit phases, clear success criteria table, validation checkpoints ('MUST complete each phase before proceeding'), and feedback loops ('Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis'). Includes explicit stopping conditions and escalation paths. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear overview, phases broken into digestible sections, and appropriate references to supporting techniques (root-cause-tracing.md, defense-in-depth.md) and related skills. Navigation is clear with one-level-deep references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- 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.