diagnosing-bugs
Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions.
Skill by JianHun101
Chalk Labs
Need help deploying diagnosing-bugs?
Chalk Labs sets up agents like this inside real teams: connected to your tools, tested on your data, with a human in the loop where it matters.
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/jianhun101-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
Use cases: testing
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. Not for trivial bugs fixable in one pass without a feedback loop. Output root cause, a reproducing feedback loop, and a regression test.
- License
- MIT
- Instructions
- 138 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub
Before installing
- Ships executable scripts
- Instructions call the network
Files (2)
- SKILL.md
- 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 `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.
## 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 — try them 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) — drives the UI, 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 — 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 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** (paste the invocation and its output), 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 — 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 — 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.
If a correct seam exists:
1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
2. Watch it fail.
3. Apply the fix.
4. Watch it pass.
5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.
## Phase 6 — Cleanup + post-mortemFrom JianHun101/catStudio, MIT.
More from JianHun101/catStudio
- 0.524score
break-tunnel-vision
JianHun101
跳出牛角尖方法论。Use when 同一个方向反复修复失败(2+ 次)、每次修完还是同样的错、钻在某个自认为的原因里出不来、用户说"你的思路错了/想想别的方向"。 Not for 第一次修复就成功的常见 bug(用 diagnosing-bugs)。 Output 重新锚定——停止 + 新方向 +…
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
request-review
JianHun101
发起审查请求前的前置门槛与轮次规则。六条 BLOCKED 门槛不满足则请求发不出去;同型 finding 二犯触发 failure-mode audit;同对象 ≥3 轮停手升级到需求/方案层。Use when a code change has passed self-check and you are…
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
prototype
JianHun101
Build a throwaway prototype to flesh out a design — a runnable terminal app for state/business-logic questions, or several radically different UI variations…
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
quality-gate
JianHun101
代码变更提交审查前的自查门。检查编码规范、测试覆盖、架构边界、安全性和未完成项。通过后由作者按 request-review 自行发起审查请求。Use when a code change is finished and needs a self-check before review.
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
on-site-project
JianHun101
驻场外部项目工作方法论。Use when 被派到外部/第三方项目做改动(非本仓库)、接手陌生技术栈、需跨长会话持续可信排障、改动会覆盖用户真实数据。 Not for 本仓库内的常规开发(用 implement)、纯讨论、已知原因的简单修复。 Output 清晰的项目认知 + 持续可信的过程文档 + 可回退的改动。
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
receive-review
JianHun101
接收并处理审查反馈。逐项核实审查发现,按严重度分类处理,拒绝表演性同意。Use when another agent's review feedback arrives after a code review.
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.520score
catstudy-receive-review
JianHun101
处理审查者反馈:Red→Green 修复 + 技术论证(禁止表演性同意)。 Use when: 收到 review 结果、审查者提了 P1/P2、需要处理反馈。 Not for: 发 review 请求(用 catstudy-request-review)、自检(用 catstudy-quality-gate)。…
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.520score
catstudy-quality-gate
JianHun101
开发完成后的自检门禁:愿景对照 + spec 合规 + 测试/lint/build 验证。 Use when: 开发完了准备提 review、声称完成了、准备交付。 Not for: 收到 review 反馈(用 catstudy-receive-review)。 Output: Quality Gate 合规报告。
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.504score
git-guardrails-claude-code
JianHun101
Set up Claude Code hooks to block dangerous git commands (push, reset --hard, clean, branch -D, etc.) before they execute.
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.499score
improve-codebase-architecture
JianHun101
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.499score
codebase-design
JianHun101
Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules.
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.499score
domain-modeling
JianHun101
Build and sharpen a project's domain model.
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9
Signals
- Stars
- 0
- Forks
- 0
- Open issues
- 0
- Last commit (this folder)
- Aug 31, 2026 (2 months ago)
From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).
Details
- License
- MIT
- Repository
- github.com/JianHun101/catStudio
- First seen
- Oct 24, 2026
- Last checked
- Oct 24, 2026
- Source
- GitHubgithub-graphql
More from JianHun101
- 0.524score
quality-gate
JianHun101
代码变更提交审查前的自查门。检查编码规范、测试覆盖、架构边界、安全性和未完成项。通过后由作者按 request-review 自行发起审查请求。Use when a code change is finished and needs a self-check before review.
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
receive-review
JianHun101
接收并处理审查反馈。逐项核实审查发现,按严重度分类处理,拒绝表演性同意。Use when another agent's review feedback arrives after a code review.
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
break-tunnel-vision
JianHun101
跳出牛角尖方法论。Use when 同一个方向反复修复失败(2+ 次)、每次修完还是同样的错、钻在某个自认为的原因里出不来、用户说"你的思路错了/想想别的方向"。 Not for 第一次修复就成功的常见 bug(用 diagnosing-bugs)。 Output 重新锚定——停止 + 新方向 +…
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
on-site-project
JianHun101
驻场外部项目工作方法论。Use when 被派到外部/第三方项目做改动(非本仓库)、接手陌生技术栈、需跨长会话持续可信排障、改动会覆盖用户真实数据。 Not for 本仓库内的常规开发(用 implement)、纯讨论、已知原因的简单修复。 Output 清晰的项目认知 + 持续可信的过程文档 + 可回退的改动。
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
prototype
JianHun101
Build a throwaway prototype to flesh out a design — a runnable terminal app for state/business-logic questions, or several radically different UI variations…
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9 - 0.524score
request-review
JianHun101
发起审查请求前的前置门槛与轮次规则。六条 BLOCKED 门槛不满足则请求发不出去;同型 finding 二犯触发 failure-mode audit;同对象 ≥3 轮停手升级到需求/方案层。Use when a code change has passed self-check and you are…
SkillBFreshness: BClaude Code +9
Done for you
Rather not set it up yourself?
Chalk Labs scopes, builds and runs agents for your team: the task audit, the eval harness, the integrations and the weekly ops report. Fixed scope, priced before we start.
See how we build AI agents →Read the case studies
Chalk Labs is a two-founder AI and growth studio. We build AI agents, CRMs and MVPs for Web3 and AI companies, and have shipped 50+ product and token launches.
- launches shipped
- 50+
- launches shipped
- media placements
- 500+
- media placements
- founders on every account
- 2
- founders on every account
Press we've placed: Forbes · CoinDesk · Decrypt · Cointelegraph · The Block
Rahil Jain, Co-founder, Chalk Labs. Ex-Goldman Sachs engineer. You talk to the person who builds it.
Get diagnosing-bugs running in your business
Tell us what you want to automate. A founder replies within one working day with a plan, not a pitch deck.
Cite this page
diagnosing-bugs skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/jianhun101-diagnosing-bugs (last updated 2026-10-24)