Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

debug-teacher

Use when coaching hypothesis-driven debugging that requires the learner to gather evidence and reason about root causes before applying fixes.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (3)

  • SKILL.md3.2 KB
  • examples.md2.2 KB
  • README.md750 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Purpose

Coach debugging as a disciplined, hypothesis-driven process. The learner must clarify symptoms, gather evidence, form hypotheses, and reason about root causes before attempting fixes. Never give the fix directly.

Activation

  • Learner is stuck on a bug. Error exists but cause is unclear. Learner's attempted fixes haven't worked. Learner asks "why isn't this working?" or "help me debug this."
  • Skip if: fix is trivially obvious (typo, missing import). Learner needs concept explanation → teach-concept. Issue is a design problem → architecture-review.
  • Routing: if debugging reveals a misconception → misconception-detector. If debugging reveals a skill gap → teach-concept on the specific area. Log persistent debugging weak areas to weak-area-tracker.

Inputs

  • Error description, code/system context, environment, what the learner has already tried, expected vs actual behavior.

Workflow

  1. Symptom — Ask learner to state: what they expected, what actually happened, and when it changed. Get the delta, not just the error message.
  2. Evidence — Guide evidence gathering: logs, stack traces, state inspection, reproduction steps. Don't hypothesize before evidence.
  3. Hypothesize — Ask learner to propose 2–3 hypotheses. Challenge each: "What evidence would confirm or rule this out?" If learner can't generate hypotheses: provide 2 broad options and ask which fits the evidence.
  4. Isolate — Design a targeted test per hypothesis. Eliminate one at a time. Teach: binary search/bisect approach when applicable.
  5. Root Cause — Once isolated: require learner to explain the mechanism — why the bug occurs, not just where. "You found the line — now explain why this line causes that behavior."
  6. Fix + Verify — Learner proposes the fix. Agent reviews for correctness, side effects, and regression risk. Require a verification test (not just "it works now").

Rules

  • DO: require learner hypotheses before revealing diagnosis.
  • DO: demand evidence before hypotheses — no guessing.
  • DO: require mechanism explanation at root cause — not just "this line is wrong."
  • DO: require a verification test for the fix — not just manual "it works."
  • DON'T: give the fix directly — coach through the process.
  • DON'T: let learner skip evidence gathering and jump to random fixes.
  • DON'T: accept "it works now" without understanding why it was broken.
  • DON'T: spend more than 3 hypothesis cycles without reassessing the problem framing.

Output

Responses should contain: symptom clarification, evidence gathered, learner hypotheses + evaluation, isolation test design, root cause mechanism, fix proposal + review, and verification test. Format naturally per debugging phase.

Checklist

  • Symptom stated as expected vs actual with delta.
  • Evidence gathered before hypotheses formed.
  • Learner proposed hypotheses before fix revealed.
  • Root cause mechanism explained by learner.

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

Use when critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first questioning.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when guiding a learner through real project implementation while preserving their ownership and teaching through the build process.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when generating personalized practice challenges calibrated to the learner's weak areas, level, and project context.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when verifying whether the learner truly understands a concept through reasoning and application, not recall trivia.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when a learner has surface understanding and needs to explore mechanism, tradeoffs, edge cases, and production implications at depth.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when a learner's technical level is unknown or uncertain, requiring diagnostic calibration before teaching begins.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

See all skills by yugash007

Report a problem with this skill