Root cause analysis and debugging protocols. Use when encountering errors, test failures, unexpected behavior, stack traces, or when code behaves differently than expected.
86
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
82%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 is a solid description with excellent trigger terms and complete structure including explicit 'Use when' guidance. The main weakness is the somewhat abstract capability statement ('protocols') that could be more concrete about specific debugging actions, and moderate overlap risk with other coding-related skills.
Suggestions
Replace 'debugging protocols' with specific actions like 'analyze stack traces, trace execution flow, identify root causes of failures, debug test assertions'
Add more distinctive triggers to reduce conflict risk, such as 'debugging session', 'why is this failing', 'trace the error', or specific error types
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain ('root cause analysis and debugging protocols') and implies actions but doesn't list concrete specific actions like 'analyze stack traces, trace variable state, identify failing assertions'. The phrase 'protocols' is somewhat abstract. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Root cause analysis and debugging protocols') and when ('Use when encountering errors, test failures, unexpected behavior, stack traces, or when code behaves differently than expected') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'errors', 'test failures', 'unexpected behavior', 'stack traces', 'code behaves differently than expected'. These cover common variations of how users describe debugging needs. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While debugging is a specific domain, 'errors' and 'unexpected behavior' are broad terms that could overlap with general coding assistance skills or error handling skills. The triggers could conflict with skills focused on specific error types or testing frameworks. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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 well-structured debugging skill with excellent organization and appropriate progressive disclosure. The content is concise and respects Claude's intelligence. The main weakness is the lack of concrete, executable examples - the guidance is clear but abstract, relying on referenced files for specifics rather than providing copy-paste ready debugging commands or code snippets.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example showing debug logging code that could be copy-pasted (e.g., a Python or JavaScript snippet with entry/exit logging)
Include at least one specific debugging command or tool invocation example in the main skill file rather than deferring all specifics to references
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, avoiding explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Each section provides actionable guidance without padding or unnecessary context. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides structured guidance and clear steps, but lacks concrete executable examples. The debugging process is described abstractly rather than with specific code snippets or commands that could be copy-pasted. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step debugging process is clearly sequenced with logical progression. The integration section provides explicit verification checkpoints (CI passes, tests pass) before proceeding with commits. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with a concise overview and well-signaled one-level-deep references to detailed materials (root-cause-analysis.md, error-patterns.md, debugging-tools.md). Content is appropriately split between overview and reference files. | 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.
3376255
Table of Contents
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.