本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

agent-introspection-debugging

Structured self-debugging workflow for AI agent failures using capture, diagnosis, contained recovery, and introspection reports.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.4 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。

Agent Introspection Debugging

Use this skill when an agent run is failing repeatedly, consuming tokens without progress, looping on the same tools, or drifting away from the intended task.

This is a workflow skill, not a hidden runtime. It teaches the agent to debug itself systematically before escalating to a human.

When to Activate

  • Maximum tool call / loop-limit failures
  • Repeated retries with no forward progress
  • Context growth or prompt drift that starts degrading output quality
  • File-system or environment state mismatch between expectation and reality
  • Tool failures that are likely recoverable with diagnosis and a smaller corrective action

Scope Boundaries

Activate this skill for:

  • capturing failure state before retrying blindly
  • diagnosing common agent-specific failure patterns
  • applying contained recovery actions
  • producing a structured human-readable debug report

Do not use this skill as the primary source for:

  • feature verification after code changes; use verification-loop
  • framework-specific debugging when a narrower ECC skill already exists
  • runtime promises the current harness cannot enforce automatically

Four-Phase Loop

Phase 1: Failure Capture

Before trying to recover, record the failure precisely.

Capture:

  • error type, message, and stack trace when available
  • last meaningful tool call sequence
  • what the agent was trying to do
  • current context pressure: repeated prompts, oversized pasted logs, duplicated plans, or runaway notes
  • current environment assumptions: cwd, branch, relevant service state, expected files

Minimum capture template:

## Failure Capture
- Session / task:
- Goal in progress:
- Error:
- Last successful step:
- Last failed tool / command:
- Repeated pattern seen:
- Environment assumptions to verify:

Phase 2: Root-Cause Diagnosis

Match the failure to a known pattern before changing anything.

PatternLikely CauseCheck
Maximum tool calls / repeated same commandloop or no-exit observer pathinspect the last N tool calls for repetition
Context overflow / degraded reasoningunbounded notes, repeated plans, oversized logsinspect recent context for duplication and low-signal bulk
ECONNREFUSED / timeoutservice unavailable or wrong portverify service health, URL, and port assumptions
429 / quota exhaustionretry storm or missing backoffcount repeated calls and inspect retry spacing
file missing after write / stale diffrace, wrong cwd, or branch driftre-check path, cwd, git status, and actual file existence
tests still failing after “fix”wrong hypothesisisolate the exact failing test and re-derive the bug

Diagnosis questions:

  • is this a logic failure, state failure, environment failure, or policy failure?
  • did the agent lose the real objective and start optimizing the wrong subtask?
  • is the failure deterministic or transient?
  • what is the smallest reversible action that would validate the diagnosis?

Phase 3: Contained Recovery

Recover with the smallest action that changes the diagnosis surface.

Safe recovery actions:

  • stop repeated retries and restate the hypothesis
  • trim low-signal context and keep only the active goal, blockers, and evidence
  • re-check the actual filesystem / branch / process state
  • narrow the task to one failing command, one file, or one test
  • switch from speculative reasoning to direct observation
  • escalate to a human when the failure is high-risk or externally blocked

Do not claim unsupported auto-healing actions like “reset agent state” or “update harness config” unless you are actually doing them through real tools in the current environment.

Contained recovery checklist:

## Recovery Action
- Diagnosis chosen:
- Smallest action taken:
- Why this is safe:
- What evidence would prove the fix worked:

Phase 4: Introspection Report

End with a report that makes the recovery legible to the next agent or human.

## Agent Self-Debug Report
- Session / task:
- Failure:
- Root cause:
- Recovery action:
- Result: success | partial | blocked
- Token / time burn risk:
- Follow-up needed:
- Preventive change to encode later:

Recovery Heuristics

Prefer these interventions in order:

  1. Restate the real objective in one sentence.
  2. Verify the world state instead of trusting memory.
  3. Shrink the failing scope.
  4. Run one discriminating check.
  5. Only then retry.

Bad pattern:

  • retrying the same action three times with slightly different wording

Good pattern:

  • capture failure
  • classify the pattern
  • run one direct check
  • change the plan only if the check supports it

Integration with ECC

  • Use verification-loop after recovery if code was changed.
  • Use continuous-learning-v2 when the failure pattern is worth turning into an instinct or later skill.
  • Use council when the issue is not technical failure but decision ambiguity.
  • Use workspace-surface-audit if the failure came from conflicting local state or repo drift.

Output Standard

When this skill is active, do not end with “I fixed it” alone.

Always provide:

  • the failure pattern
  • the root-cause hypothesis
  • the recovery action
  • the evidence that the situation is now better or still blocked

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

Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards. Use this skill to generate semantic ARIA for Web and accessibility traits for Web and Native platforms (iOS/Android).

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

Whole site or product — a full web accessibility (a11y) audit against WCAG 2.2, following the WCAG-EM methodology. Defines scope, samples representative pages and flows, runs the automated tier (`accessibility-scan`) and the hands-on manual tier (`accessibility-inspect`), and produces one conformance report. Grades each finding by severity and evidence basis, and states per-criterion conformance as pass, fail, or undetermined (needs a human). Use it for 'audit my site for accessibility', 'is this product accessible', 'a11y audit', 'WCAG or Section 508 conformance report', or any multi-page assessment. Assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`) or diff (use `accessibility-diff`). For a single page use `accessibility-scan`; for hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

Regression check — diff a live page's web accessibility (a11y) violations against a baseline. By default it compares your uncommitted changes (stash-based); pass `--branch [<name>]` to compare against a branch. Reports the new WCAG violations introduced, the ones fixed, and the count of pre-existing ones. Use it for 'did my change break accessibility', 'what a11y issues did this PR add', or as a CI gate. For a full scan of one page use `accessibility-scan`; for a whole site use `accessibility-audit`.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

Remediation only — repair web accessibility (a11y) violations against WCAG 2.2 with a baseline, edit, and verify loop. Takes a target (URL, files, directory) or a findings worklist from `accessibility-scan`/`accessibility-inspect`/`accessibility-audit`, applies mechanical fixes as given, leaves TODOs for visual or contextual judgment, and verifies by re-running the baseline check. It only fixes. To find issues use `accessibility-scan` (one page, automated), `accessibility-inspect` (one page, manual), or `accessibility-audit` (whole site, WCAG-EM); to check for regressions use `accessibility-diff`. Use it for 'fix the a11y issues in X', 'make this accessible', 'add missing alt text and labels', 'apply these accessibility fixes', 'remediate these violations'.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

One page, hands-on manual tier — drive a live page through the web accessibility (a11y) checks a rule engine can't decide: keyboard operation and focus order, screen-reader names, roles and states from the accessibility tree, reflow and zoom, reduced motion, form errors, and target size. Grades each finding by evidence basis (verified / confirm-with-a-human / human-required) and severity, and closes every criterion in a ledger: verified, flagged, not exercised, or N/A. Locates and assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`). Use it for keyboard testing, focus-order checks, screen-reader or a11y-tree review, reflow and zoom at 200%, or 'is this operable, not just lint-clean'. The automated tier is `accessibility-scan`; `accessibility-audit` runs both across a sampled site.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

One page, automated tier — run the web accessibility (a11y) rule engine against a live page and locate every violation it can detect mechanically. Pass a URL, a config target name (e.g. `accesslint:accessibility-scan dev`), or nothing to use the default target from `accesslint.config.json`. Ensures a debuggable Chrome, runs the @accesslint/core engine over CDP, and returns a worklist of live-DOM WCAG 2.2 violations, each grounded to its DOM selector and source `file:line`. Locates; doesn't edit. Use it for 'is this page accessible', 'check a11y on this URL', 'find contrast and alt-text issues', or to verify a UI change. For hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`; for a whole site or product use `accessibility-audit`; to diff against uncommitted changes or a branch use `accessibility-diff`.

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

tensology のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する