diagnosing-bugs
Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions.
Skill by immagiov4
Install
Works with Claude Code, Claude apps, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, VS Code, OpenCode, Goose, Windsurf. Read the repository before you give any tool access to your data.
npx agentmarket install skill/immagiov4-diagnosing-bugs
Asks which of your tools to add it to (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, Claude Desktop) and shows the change first. See https://agentmart.dev/cli.
Get the weekly diff
The weekly diff: one email a week with new agent tools, notable updates and grade changes, plus security alerts for tools you follow. Double opt-in, one-click unsubscribe.
About
Reviews
Write a reviewNo reviews yet. Installed it? Reviews come from verified installers only. How reviews work
Permissions
What this skill can do and what it asks for, from its SKILL.md. Checked Oct 25, 2026.
- Tools
- No tools found
- Secrets
- None asked for
- Install scripts
- None found
- Runs as
- Shell scripts
Network hosts it talks to 1
codeload.github.com· found in install command
Files it touches
~/.claude/skills/diagnosing-bugs
What's inside
- Skill name
diagnosing-bugs- Description
- Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.
- License
- MIT
- Instructions
- 139 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub
Before installing
- Ships executable scripts
Files (3)
- SKILL.md
- openai.yaml · agents/
- hitl-loop.template.sh · scripts/
SKILL.md (first lines)
# Diagnosing Bugs
A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.
When exploring the codebase, read the project glossary designated by repository instructions (`GLOSSARY.md` or existing `CONTEXT.md`, following its map when present) if it exists to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.
## Redact
This skill has you show commands, outputs and captured artifacts. **Redact every secret first**: write `<REDACTED>` in its place. Build loops against env vars, so the credential stays in the environment rather than in what you show. Captured artifacts carry auth headers: quote only the lines that carry the signal.
If the redacted output is not enough to diagnose the bug, say so and ask the user.
## Establish the comparison
State the exact symptom and the before/after observation to explain. Check each causal claim against what changed and what stayed the same: an unchanged condition may contribute, but needs evidence of an interaction to explain the difference. Keep a measured improvement separate from any remaining symptom, with its own hypothesis and discriminating observation.
## Phase 1: Build a feedback loop
**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a **tight** pass/fail signal for the bug (one that goes red on _this_ bug), you will find the cause; bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume it. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you.
Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**
### Ways to construct one, in roughly this order
1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug: unit, integration, e2e.
2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) that drives the UI and asserts on DOM/console/network.
5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.
### Tighten the loop
Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, **tighten** it:
- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop; a 2-second deterministic one is tight, a debugging superpower.
### Non-deterministic bugs
The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not, so keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
### When you genuinely cannot build a loop
Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a redacted captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop.
### Completion criterion: a tight loop that goes red
Phase 1 is done when the loop is **tight** and **red-capable**: you can name **one command** (a script path, a test invocation, a curl) that you have **already run at least once** (show the invocation and its output, redacted), and that is:
- [ ] **Red-capable**: it drives the actual bug code path and asserts the **user's exact symptom**, so it can go red on this bug and green once fixed. Not "runs without erroring"; it must be able to _catch this specific bug_.
- [ ] **Deterministic**: same verdict every run (flaky bugs: a pinned, high reproduction rate, per above).
- [ ] **Fast**: seconds, not minutes.
- [ ] **Agent-runnable**: you can run it unattended; a human in the loop only via `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh`.
If you catch yourself reading code to build a theory before this command exists, **stop: jumping straight to a hypothesis is the exact failure this skill prevents.** No red-capable command, no Phase 2.
## Phase 2: Reproduce + minimise
Run the loop. Watch it go red as the bug appears.
Confirm:
- [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described, not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.
- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).
- [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.
### Minimise
Once it's red, shrink the repro to the **smallest scenario that still goes red**. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps **one at a time**, re-running the loop after each cut, and keep only what's load-bearing for the failure.
Why bother: a minimal repro shrinks the hypothesis space in Phase 3 (fewer moving parts left to suspect) and becomes the clean regression test in Phase 5.
Done when **every remaining element is load-bearing**: removing any one of them makes the loop go green.
Do not proceed until you have reproduced **and** minimised.
## Phase 3: Hypothesise
Generate **3–5 ranked hypotheses** before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.
Each hypothesis must be **falsifiable**: state the prediction it makes.
> Format: "If <X> is the cause, then <changing Y> will make the bug disappear / <changing Z> will make it worse."
If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe: discard or sharpen it.
**Show the ranked list to the user before testing.** They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it; proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK.
## Phase 4: Instrument
Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. **Change one variable at a time.**
Tool preference:
1. **Debugger / REPL inspection** if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.
2. **Targeted logs** at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.
3. Never "log everything and grep".
**Tag every debug log** with a unique prefix, e.g. `[DEBUG-a4f2]`. Cleanup at the end becomes a single grep. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.
**Perf branch.** For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness, `performance.now()`, profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second.
## Phase 5: Fix + regression test
Write the regression test **before the fix**, but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.
A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.From immagiov4/my-codex-skills, MIT.
More from immagiov4/my-codex-skills
- 0.567score
esempio-guidato
immagiov4
Esegui una richiesta di modifica o esplorazione del codice come esempio guidato, mostrando nel browser un passo reale alla volta e attendendo domande o Avanti…
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.567score
code-review
immagiov4
Revisiona un ramo, una PR o modifiche locali con il Codex CLI e GPT-6.1 Sol: ricerche indipendenti, conferma dei rilievi, copertura e consumi misurati.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.565score
engineering-workflow
immagiov4
Route non-trivial software work through discovery, architecture, implementation, verification, review, and small living documentation.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.560score
codex-adapter
immagiov4
Translation layer between Codex conventions and Claude Code.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.558score
docs-doc
immagiov4
Compatibility name for Writing for Humans.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.541score
architect
immagiov4
Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stay in the loop while implementation fills in.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.539score
figure-it-out
immagiov4
Design an auditable playbook when no narrower one fits: a large migration, an ambitious multi-part change, or work a human reviews after stepping away.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.539score
domain-modeling
immagiov4
Build and sharpen a project's domain model.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.539score
codebase-design
immagiov4
Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.536score
blast-radius
immagiov4
Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of…
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.536score
improve-codebase-architecture
immagiov4
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.528score
handoff
immagiov4
Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9
Signals
- Stars
- 0
- Forks
- 0
- Open issues
- 0
- Last commit (this folder)
- Oct 6, 2026 (22 days ago)
From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).
Details
- License
- MIT
- Repository
- github.com/immagiov4/my-codex-skills
- First seen
- Oct 24, 2026
- Last checked
- Oct 24, 2026
- Source
- GitHubgithub-graphql
More from immagiov4
- 0.567score
code-review
immagiov4
Revisiona un ramo, una PR o modifiche locali con il Codex CLI e GPT-6.1 Sol: ricerche indipendenti, conferma dei rilievi, copertura e consumi misurati.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.567score
esempio-guidato
immagiov4
Esegui una richiesta di modifica o esplorazione del codice come esempio guidato, mostrando nel browser un passo reale alla volta e attendendo domande o Avanti…
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.565score
engineering-workflow
immagiov4
Route non-trivial software work through discovery, architecture, implementation, verification, review, and small living documentation.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.560score
codex-adapter
immagiov4
Translation layer between Codex conventions and Claude Code.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.558score
docs-doc
immagiov4
Compatibility name for Writing for Humans.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9 - 0.541score
architect
immagiov4
Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stay in the loop while implementation fills in.
SkillAFreshness: AClaude Code +9
Cite this page
diagnosing-bugs skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/immagiov4-diagnosing-bugs (last updated 2026-10-24)