CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

systematic-debugging

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

48

Quality

51%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./eval/local/skills/benchmarks/dependency/superpowers/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

55%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.

The content has a strong, well-sequenced four-phase debugging workflow with explicit checkpoints and escalation logic, but it is padded with redundant motivational material and references three supporting files that are not actually present in the bundle. Trimming the padding and either providing or removing the missing referenced files would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Remove redundant padding — the 'Common Rationalizations' table largely restates 'Red Flags', and the 'Real-World Impact' statistics are marketing-style filler that Claude does not need.

Provide the three referenced files (root-cause-tracing.md, defense-in-depth.md, condition-based-waiting.md) or remove the references and inline only the essential tracing technique, since currently the references point to non-existent files.

Convert attitudinal directives ('Be specific, not vague', 'Say I don't understand X') into concrete, verifiable actions to raise actionability.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is ~290 lines with substantial padding Claude already knows — motivational prose ('Random fixes waste time', 'Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit'), repeated ALL-CAPS emphasis, a redundant 'Common Rationalizations' table restating 'Red Flags', and a marketing-style 'Real-World Impact' stats section — matching 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary padded sections' rather than 3.

2 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete steps and an executable multi-component instrumentation example (security find-identity -v, codesign --sign), but much guidance is attitudinal ('Be specific, not vague') and the core tracing technique is deferred to a referenced file that does not exist, leaving gaps that sit between 'mostly executable' and 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-phase sequence with explicit ordering ('MUST complete each phase before proceeding'), verification checkpoints (Phase 3 verify before Phase 4), feedback loops (fix fails -> re-analyze), and an explicit '3+ fixes -> question architecture' escalation, matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps and feedback loops for error recovery' anchor.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body signals one-level-deep references to root-cause-tracing.md, defense-in-depth.md, and condition-based-waiting.md as 'available in this directory', but none of these files actually exist in the bundle, breaking navigation; this is better than inlined monolithic content but worse than the 'good structure, clear references' of a 4 because the references are broken.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

47%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 has a clear, natural trigger clause but is missing any statement of what the skill actually does, leaving it unbalanced toward 'when' with no 'what'. Trigger terms are good but could add common synonyms. Distinctiveness is reasonably strong given the focused debugging niche.

Suggestions

Add a 'what' clause naming the concrete process the skill provides, e.g. 'Systematically investigate root cause through a four-phase process (reproduce, analyze, hypothesize, fix)'.

Include common trigger synonyms users say, such as 'error', 'crash', 'exception', 'broken', or 'not working', to broaden natural keyword coverage.

Reframe so the description answers both 'what does this do' and 'when to use it' in a single balanced sentence rather than only the 'when'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description identifies the debugging domain and trigger conditions ('any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior') but names no concrete actions the skill performs, matching the 'names the domain but actions are minimal' anchor rather than 3 which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

It has a strong explicit 'when' clause ('Use when encountering...before proposing fixes') but entirely lacks a 'what' statement describing what the skill does, matching the 'only when is present without what' anchor.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior' are natural phrases users say, giving good keyword coverage, though common synonyms like 'error', 'crash', 'broken', or 'not working' are missing, keeping it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Debugging is a clear niche and the 'before proposing fixes' trigger is fairly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against general coding skills, though 'any bug' is somewhat broad.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

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
rpamis/comet
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.