跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

debug

Debug a bug or unexpected behavior systematically. Use when the user says "there's a bug", "this isn't working", "I'm getting an error", "help me debug", "why is this failing", "unexpected behavior", "test is failing", "something is broken", or describes behavior that doesn't match expectations - even if they don't say "debug".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Overview

Based on "The Pragmatic Programmer" by Andrew Hunt & David Thomas. Hunt & Thomas's debugging philosophy: debugging is a puzzle to be solved with evidence, not a crisis to be panicked through. The key discipline is don't guess. Form a hypothesis, predict what you'll see if the hypothesis is correct, test it, and observe. Repeat.

Their rubber duck principle: before asking for help, explain the problem out loud (to a rubber duck or anyone). The act of articulating often reveals the answer.

Workflow

Step 1: Reproduce the bug reliably

You cannot debug what you cannot reproduce.

  • What exact steps produce the bug? Document them.
  • Is it 100% reproducible or intermittent?
  • On which environments? (dev only, staging, prod?)
  • Since when? (what changed recently?)

If you can't reproduce it reliably, make that the first problem to solve.

Step 2: Understand the expected vs actual behavior

State explicitly:

  • Expected: what should happen?
  • Actual: what is happening?
  • Evidence: logs, error messages, screenshots

Do not skip this. Vague bug descriptions lead to fixing the wrong thing.

Step 3: Form a hypothesis

What is your best theory for why the actual differs from expected? Write it down. Debugging without a hypothesis is random exploration.

Step 4: Predict the evidence

If your hypothesis is correct, what will you see when you look at [specific thing]? Make a prediction before you look. This keeps you honest.

Step 5: Test the hypothesis

  • Add targeted logging or use a debugger to observe the predicted evidence
  • Change one thing at a time - not multiple
  • If the evidence matches: hypothesis confirmed, move to Step 6
  • If the evidence doesn't match: your hypothesis is wrong, go back to Step 3

Step 6: Fix the root cause (not the symptom)

Hunt & Thomas: fix the problem, not the symptom.

  • Symptom fix: catching an exception that shouldn't be thrown
  • Root cause fix: understanding why the exception is thrown and preventing it

Ask "why" five times before writing the fix.

Step 7: Verify the fix

  • Does the original reproduction case pass?
  • Do existing tests still pass?
  • Write a test that would have caught this bug originally

Step 8: Document the learning

What was the root cause? What made it hard to find? How could it be caught earlier next time?

Anti-Patterns

1. Guessing instead of hypothesizing Bad: Randomly changing things until it works. Good: Form a hypothesis. Predict evidence. Test. Observe. Either confirm or refute.

2. Fixing the symptom Bad: Adding a null check to stop the crash. Good: Understanding why null is reaching that point and preventing it at the source.

3. Changing multiple things at once Bad: "Let me try these 5 changes together." Good: One change at a time. Otherwise you don't know which change fixed it.

4. Not writing a regression test Bad: Fix the bug, move on. Good: Write a test that reproduces the bug before fixing it. The test passes after the fix. It lives in the suite forever.

Quality Checklist

  • Bug is reproducible with documented steps
  • Expected vs actual behavior stated explicitly
  • Hypothesis written down before testing
  • Evidence predicted before looking
  • One change at a time during investigation
  • Root cause identified (not just symptom)
  • Fix verified against original reproduction case
  • Regression test written

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Design statistically rigorous experiments to test data science hypotheses. Use when the user says "design an A/B test", "run an experiment", "test this hypothesis", "is this difference significant", "how many samples do I need", "randomized controlled trial", "causal inference", "uplift test", "holdout group", "significance test", "power calculation", "avoid p-hacking", or needs to determine whether an observed effect is real before making a product or model decision. For lean build-measure-learn product experiments without the statistics, use experiment-design instead.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

查看 qa-aman 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题