parallel-debugging
Debug complex issues using competing hypotheses with parallel investigation, evidence collection, and root cause arbitration. Use this skill when debugging bugs with multiple potential causes, performing root cause analysis, or organizing parallel investigation workflows.
84
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
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.
This is a strong skill description that clearly articulates a specific debugging methodology (competing hypotheses with parallel investigation), provides concrete actions, and includes explicit trigger guidance. It uses proper third-person voice and covers natural trigger terms that users would employ when facing complex multi-cause bugs. The description is concise yet comprehensive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'competing hypotheses', 'parallel investigation', 'evidence collection', and 'root cause arbitration'. These describe a clear methodology with distinct steps. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Debug complex issues using competing hypotheses with parallel investigation, evidence collection, and root cause arbitration') and when ('when debugging bugs with multiple potential causes, performing root cause analysis, or organizing parallel investigation workflows') with an explicit 'Use this skill when' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'debugging', 'bugs', 'multiple potential causes', 'root cause analysis', 'parallel investigation'. These cover common ways users describe complex debugging scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The focus on competing hypotheses, parallel investigation, and root cause arbitration creates a distinct niche that differentiates it from general debugging or simple troubleshooting skills. The methodology-specific language reduces conflict risk. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a well-structured debugging methodology with clear workflow steps and good arbitration logic, but it's more of a conceptual framework than actionable guidance. The failure mode categories are things Claude already knows and inflate the token cost. The skill would benefit from being more concise at the top level with references to detailed materials, and from including concrete tool usage or commands rather than abstract categorizations.
Suggestions
Trim the 6 failure mode categories significantly—Claude already knows common bug categories. Instead, provide a brief checklist or move detailed categories to a separate reference file.
Add concrete actionable examples: specific debugging commands, code snippets for evidence collection (e.g., git bisect commands, log analysis one-liners), or tool invocations that Claude should use.
Split the detailed evidence tables and failure mode categories into a referenced file (e.g., EVIDENCE_GUIDE.md, FAILURE_MODES.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with navigation links.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably structured but includes some verbose category listings (e.g., the 6 failure mode categories with bullet points) that Claude could largely generate on its own. The evidence tables and confidence levels add value but could be more compact. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a structured methodology with clear categories and tables, but lacks concrete executable examples—no actual debugging commands, code snippets to run, or specific tool invocations. It's more of a conceptual framework than copy-paste-ready guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step arbitration protocol is clearly sequenced (Steps 1-4) with explicit categorization criteria, ranking rules, decision logic for ambiguous cases, and a validation checklist before declaring a fix. The feedback loop (Step 3: generate new hypotheses if none confirmed) is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a single monolithic file with substantial detail inline. The 6 failure mode categories, evidence tables, and arbitration protocol could benefit from being split into referenced files, with the SKILL.md serving as a concise overview with navigation links. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- wshobson/agents
- Commit
91fe43e
- 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.