Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHubEnglish overview

agent-introspection-debugging

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

OriginalShow the original description

Structured self-debugging workflow for AI agent failures using capture, diagnosis, contained recovery, and introspection reports. Use when an agent run fails and you need a reproducible diagnosis instead of a retry.

AI rating100/ 100See how to install

Good for

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
  • Preparing a failure and recovery handoff report

Overview

What it does

When an AI agent keeps failing or repeating the same tool operation, this skill helps record the situation and separate possible causes. It checks errors, recent actions, the task objective, and assumptions such as the working directory before moving to a recovery action with limited impact. The final report brings together the suspected cause, actions taken, evidence of improvement, and unresolved issues.

When it helps

Use it when repeated retries make no progress, growing conversations or logs reduce output quality, or actual files and services differ from their expected state. It also helps prepare an investigation for handoff to another agent or a person.

Example requests

  • “Record the recent actions and investigate why this command keeps failing.”
  • “Check the paths and branch state to find out why the file is missing.”
  • “Summarize the recovery actions, their results, and the remaining problems.”

Notes

This skill teaches investigation and recovery procedures; it is not a runtime that guarantees automatic recovery. High-risk failures and problems blocked by external factors are handed to a person. It recommends verification-loop for functional checks after code changes.

This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.

Objective evaluation

AI rated this skill on four points using only the contents of its SKILL.md. Stars and popularity are not taken into account.

Clear instructionsIs it clear when to use it and what it does?
AGoodIt identifies repeated failures and tool loops as triggers and explicitly defines capture, diagnosis, recovery, and reporting.
Concrete stepsAre steps, inputs, outputs, and examples spelled out?
AGoodIt provides four phases, a cause-and-check table, and templates for failure capture and recovery reports.
SafetyAre sending data, deleting files, and running commands disclosed?
AGoodIt requires minimal, reversible recovery and human escalation for high-risk failures or external blockers.
Easy setupDoes it need few tools or API keys, and are they documented?
AGoodIt is provided as a workflow rather than a runtime, with no mandatory additional tools or API keys specified.

The total counts each point as A = 25, B = 15, C = 5. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 19, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.

Disagree? Request a re-evaluation

Tell us which point is wrong and why. No login needed. We will check it against the SKILL.md, redo the evaluation, and show the result here.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

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

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

accessibility

FreeSummary

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-architecture-audit

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-eval

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-introspection-debugging

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 5, 2026

agent-payment-x402

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Integrate x402, an HTTP payment protocol, so agents can pay for APIs or services. Configure task and session budgets, approved recipients, and wallets with privately managed keys, using integration paths for Base, X Layer, or Solana.

  • Enable an agent to pay for a paid API
  • Set task and session spending limits
  • Restrict payment recipients, networks, and assets
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

See all skills by affaan-m

Report a problem with this skill