本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

evidence-first-debugging

Use when debugging software, investigating incidents, diagnosing flaky tests, or analyzing performance regressions — enforces structured observation recording with evidence IDs, causality validation, and verification gates to prevent correlation-causation pollution. Use when an agent might otherwise summarize or speculate instead of reporting observed evidence.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md4.5 KB
  • references/shared-references.md1.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Evidence-First Debugging

Primary responsibilities: observation recording, evidence IDs, causality validation, verification gates.

Shared References

Load these references before producing any investigation output. A references index is available for a quick map of all shared files.

Domain Extensions

Load the applicable extension when the investigation type matches. Insert the extension's sections immediately after section 2 (OBSERVATIONS).

flowchart TD
    Start([Identify investigation type]) --> Q1{Software bug or crash?}
    Q1 -->|Yes| Dbg["Load [Debugging Extensions](../../shared/extensions/debugging-extensions.md)<br>Adds: CALL STACK, RECENT CODE CHANGES, DEPENDENCY GRAPH after section 2"]
    Q1 -->|No| Q2{Latency, throughput, or memory regression?}
    Q2 -->|Yes| Perf["Load [Performance Extensions](../../shared/extensions/performance-extensions.md)<br>Adds: BASELINE METRICS, REGRESSION WINDOW, HOT PATH ANALYSIS, RESOURCE UTILIZATION after section 2"]
    Q2 -->|No| Neither[Proceed with base template only]

Non-Negotiable Rules

Enforce these for every investigation output, without exception.

Rule 1 — Facts only in FACTS / OBSERVATIONS / RESULTS

Write only directly observed signals. Causal language is permitted only when the Causality Gate classification is causal-supported. No guesses, no interpretation, no speculation.

Rule 2 — Label every hypothesis explicitly

Every hypothesis must state what it predicts and include a falsifiable test. Use the form:

H1: [specific causal mechanism]
  Prediction: If H1 is true, we would observe [specific outcome]
  Falsification test: [what would disprove H1]

Rule 3 — Reserve resolved-verified for verified outcomes

Output status: resolved-verified only when section 13 (Verification) contains a passing verification command with an evidence ID. If section 13 is absent or empty, the status must be mitigated, unresolved, or unknown.

Rule 4 — Cite evidence IDs on every claim

Every statement in FACTS or RESULTS must end with an evidence ID in brackets — e.g., [E3]. Statements without a citable evidence ID must be labeled UNKNOWN.

Rule 5 — Disclose all truncated output

When any output is abbreviated, include a truncation disclosure block immediately after the snippet:

TRUNCATED
total lines: <N>
shown: <M>
method: head | tail | grep
fingerprint: <sha256 or key tokens>
command: <exact command used>

Silent abbreviation is prohibited.

Status Options

Choose exactly one per investigation output. Include it in section 14 of the investigation template.

flowchart TD
    Start([Choose investigation status]) --> Q1{Is the issue resolved?}
    Q1 -->|No — still occurring| Unresolved[status: unresolved]
    Q1 -->|Partially — symptoms reduced but root cause unknown| Mitigated[status: mitigated]
    Q1 -->|Yes — fix applied| Q2{Does section 13 contain a passing verification command with evidence?}
    Q2 -->|Yes| Verified[status: resolved-verified]
    Q2 -->|No — verification missing or inconclusive| Unknown[status: unknown]

Output Checklist

Before emitting any investigation output, verify all items.

  • Shared references loaded (investigation template, evidence rules, causality gate)
  • Domain extension loaded if applicable (debugging or performance)
  • All FACTS and RESULTS cite evidence IDs in brackets
  • All hypotheses are labeled explicitly and include falsification tests
  • All truncated output includes a TRUNCATION disclosure block
  • Causality Gate classification present for every action-result link in section 10
  • Status is exactly one of the four valid options
  • resolved-verified is used only when section 13 contains passing verification evidence

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Add automated documentation updater to any Claude skill. Creates a Python sync script that downloads upstream docs, processes markdown for AI consumption, and maintains local cache with configurable refresh. Collects template variables, then delegates implementation through 5-phase workflow. Use when adding auto-updating reference documentation to plugins or skills.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills672026年10月9日 更新

SAM-style feature initiation workflow — discovery through codebase analysis, architecture spec, task decomposition, validation, and context manifest. Use when a user asks to add a feature, plan a feature, or convert an idea into an executable SAM plan.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills672026年10月9日 更新

Browser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, including navigating pages, filling forms, clicking buttons, taking screenshots, extracting data, testing web apps, or automating any browser task. Triggers include requests to "open a website", "fill out a form", "click a button", "take a screenshot", "scrape data from a page", "test this web app", "login to a site", "automate browser actions", or any task requiring programmatic web interaction.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills672026年10月9日 更新

Browser automation for AI agents using the agent-browser CLI and Playwright. Use when navigating pages, filling forms, clicking buttons, taking screenshots, extracting data, testing web apps, logging into sites, or automating any browser task. Triggers on "open a website", "fill out a form", "click a button", "scrape data", "test this web app", "automate browser actions", or any programmatic web interaction request.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills672026年10月9日 更新

Runs the description-drift experiment — spawns all Claude Code agents simultaneously to collect self-reported capabilities, then compares them against static frontmatter descriptions to reveal how reliable orchestrator routing based on descriptions actually is. Use when measuring description drift across the agent fleet, re-running the capability collection experiment, analyzing a specific agent's self-reported capabilities, or auditing whether frontmatter descriptions accurately reflect agent behavior.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills672026年10月9日 更新

Create or adapt Claude Code agent definitions. Use when creating an agent, changing subagent configuration, selecting agent scope, or designing a specialized delegation role.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills672026年10月9日 更新

Jamie-BitFlight のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する