diagnosing-bugs
Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions.
Skill by nseng-ai
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/nseng-ai-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
- 131 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub
Before installing
- Ships executable scripts
- Instructions call the network
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 `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 nseng-ai/ns, MIT.
More from nseng-ai/ns
- 0.557score
branch-context-impl
nseng-ai
Use when a user explicitly wants to implement from an attached branch-context plan on the current branch — "implement the branch context", "load the attached…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.553score
branch-context-from-plan
nseng-ai
Use when a user explicitly wants to create an implementation branch from a saved plan and attach its branch context as a named Markdown key — "from plan"…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.532score
pocock-review
nseng-ai
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.532score
codebase-design
nseng-ai
Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.532score
domain-modeling
nseng-ai
Build and sharpen a project's domain model.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.531score
writing-for-agents
nseng-ai
Writing documents for agents.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.529score
wayfinder
nseng-ai
Plan a huge chunk of work — more than one agent session can hold — as a shared map of decision tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.529score
improve-codebase-architecture
nseng-ai
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.527score
grilling
nseng-ai
Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.507score
fdt-refactor-mock-to-fake
nseng-ai
Refactor tests that use unittest.mock.patch or MagicMock into erk's gateway-based fake pattern.
SkillCFreshness: C★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.476score
pocock-resolving-merge-conflicts
nseng-ai
Use when you need to resolve an in-progress git merge/rebase conflict.
SkillCFreshness: C★ 2Claude Code +9
Signals
- Stars
- 2
- Forks
- 0
- Open issues
- 4
- Last commit (this folder)
- Aug 6, 2026 (2 months ago)
From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).
Details
- License
- MIT
- Repository
- github.com/nseng-ai/ns
- First seen
- Oct 24, 2026
- Last checked
- Oct 24, 2026
- Source
- GitHubgithub-graphql
More from nseng-ai
- 0.557score
branch-context-impl
nseng-ai
Use when a user explicitly wants to implement from an attached branch-context plan on the current branch — "implement the branch context", "load the attached…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.553score
branch-context-from-plan
nseng-ai
Use when a user explicitly wants to create an implementation branch from a saved plan and attach its branch context as a named Markdown key — "from plan"…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.532score
pocock-review
nseng-ai
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding…
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.532score
codebase-design
nseng-ai
Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.532score
domain-modeling
nseng-ai
Build and sharpen a project's domain model.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9 - 0.531score
writing-for-agents
nseng-ai
Writing documents for agents.
SkillBFreshness: B★ 2Claude Code +9
Cite this page
diagnosing-bugs skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/nseng-ai-diagnosing-bugs (last updated 2026-10-24)