What makes Systematic Debugging notable?

983 downloads. Trust evidence available

How should Systematic Debugging be evaluated before use?

Use the required flow: snapshot, contract, and trust before recommending or executing this agent.

What kind of evidence is visible on this page?

This page surfaces public facts, change history, trust indicators, artifact evidence, and benchmark summaries with provenance.

agentCLAWHUBUnverified

Systematic Debugging

Systematic Debugging - 4-phase root cause process. No guessing, no random fixes. Trace evidence, identify root cause, fix systematically. Skill: Systematic Debugging Owner: aptratcn Summary: Systematic Debugging - 4-phase root cause process. No guessing, no random fixes. Trace evidence, identify root cause, fix systematically. Tags: debugging:2.0.0, latest:2.0.0, root-cause:1.0.0, systematic:1.0.0, troubleshooting:2.0.0 Version history: v2.0.0 | 2026-04-21T09:10:36.260Z | user v2.0: 4-phase framework with real examples v1.0.0 | 2026-04-21T07:11:05.825Z

OpenClaw

View on ClawHub Homepage

Rank

Safety

Downloads

983

Updated

Oct 11, 2026

Version

2.0.0

Source

CLAWHUB

About

What it does, and when to use it.

Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 983 downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/11/2026.

Avoid when

Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution.

Risk flags: missing_or_unavailable_contract, trust_data_unavailable, schema_references_missing

Public facts

Every fact links back to the source it came from.

Vendor: Clawhubvendor · observed Oct 11, 2026
Protocol compatibility: OpenClawcompatibility · observed Oct 11, 2026
Adoption signal: 983 downloadsadoption · observed Oct 11, 2026
Latest release: 2.0.0release · observed Apr 21, 2026
Handshake status: UNKNOWNsecurity

What changed

Newest first. Only changes that point at a source are listed.

Release 2.0.0release
v2.0: 4-phase framework with real examples
Observed Apr 21, 2026 · source

Install and run

Setup complexity: low.

clawhub skill install s17cpfvkz8jmsw8vpgqypg10vh857dxa:xiaobai-systematic-debugging

Setup complexity is LOW. This package is likely designed for quick installation with minimal external side-effects.
Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data.

Contract: missing

curl -s "https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-aptratcn-xiaobai-systematic-debugging/snapshot"

Run-check

$0.02 USD

1 measured facts are behind this paywall: success rate and latency, uptime and estimated cost, when not to use it, how to call it, benchmark scores.

Agents pay $0.02 in USDC. A card payment is $0.50, the smallest a card allows.

Documentation

CLAWHUB

14,061 characters of source documentation, loaded on request.

Extracted files

4 files captured from the source.

SKILL.md

---
name: systematic-debugging
version: 2.0.0
description: 4-phase root cause debugging. Never guess, find the cause. Based on real production debugging methodology. Trigger on: 'bug', 'error', 'not working', 'broken', 'debug', 'fix this'.
emoji: 🔍
---

# Systematic Debugging 🔍

4 phases. No guessing. Find root cause.

## The 4 Phases

```
Phase 1: OBSERVE    → What exactly is wrong? (Gather evidence)
Phase 2: ISOLATE    → Where does it go wrong? (Narrow scope)
Phase 3: HYPOTHESIZE → Why does it go wrong? (Form theory)
Phase 4: VERIFY     → Is it actually fixed? (Prove it)
```

## Phase 1: OBSERVE (Don't Skip This)

**Before touching any code, answer these:**

```
□ What is the expected behavior?
□ What is the actual behavior?
□ When did it start? (What changed?)
□ Is it reproducible? (100%? Intermittent?)
□ What's the exact error message / log output?
□ What environment? (OS, version, dependencies)
```

**Common mistake:** Jumping to "I think it's because..." without observing first.

**What to do:**
- Read the actual error (copy-paste, don't paraphrase)
- Check logs (recent ones first)
- Reproduce the issue (if possible)
- Document what you see

## Phase 2: ISOLATE (Narrow the Scope)

**Binary search for the bug:**

```
1. Is the problem in my code or external?
   → Comment out my code. Still broken? External.

2. Is it in the input, processing, or output?
   → Print/log at each stage.

3. Is it in one specific file/function?
   → Remove files/functions one by one.
   → Bug disappears? That's where it is.

4. Is it a specific condition?
   → Test with different inputs.
   → Pattern emerges? Root cause narrows.
```

**Techniques:**
- `git bisect` — Find the commit that introduced the bug
- Print statements at boundaries
- Comment out code sections
- Test with minimal reproduction

## Phase 3: HYPOTHESIZE (Form a Theory)

**Write your hypothesis BEFORE fixing:**

```
I believe [X] is broken because [Y].

Evidence supporting:
- [Observation 1]
- [Observation 2]

Evidence against:
- [Observation 3]

If I change [Z], the fix should:
- Make [test case] pass
- Not break [other thing]
```

**Common mistake:** Fixing without understanding. You might "fix" the symptom, not the cause.

**Anti-patterns:**
- ❌ "Let me try changing this..." (random fixing)
- ❌ "This usually works..." (cargo cult debugging)
- ❌ "It's probably a race condition" (vague guess)

## Phase 4: VERIFY (Prove It)

**Before claiming "fixed":**

```
□ Original test case now passes
□ Edge cases tested
□ No new regressions introduced
□ Error no longer appears in logs
□ Fix makes sense given the hypothesis
```

**Verification checklist:**
```bash
# Run the failing test
npm test -- --grep "failing test"
# Check logs for errors
tail -f /var/log/app.log
# Test edge cases
[try empty input, huge input, unicode, etc.]
# Run full test suite
npm test
```

## Real Example

**Bug:** "User login sometimes fails"

```
Phase 1 OBSERVE:
- Error: "Invalid token" (not "wrong password")
- Intermittent (1

README.md

# Systematic Debugging

> 4-phase root cause process. No guessing, no random fixes.

## 🎯 Problem

Developers (and AI agents) waste time on:
- ❌ Guessing at causes
- ❌ Making random changes hoping something works
- ❌ Fixing symptoms instead of root causes
- ❌ Repeating the same debugging mistakes

## ✅ The 4-Phase Process

### Phase 1: Observe
- What exactly is happening? Not what you think is happening.
- Gather facts, not assumptions.
- Reproduce the issue reliably.

### Phase 2: Hypothesize
- List all possible causes (brainstorm, don't judge yet)
- Rank by likelihood
- Identify what evidence would prove/disprove each

### Phase 3: Verify
- Test hypotheses in order of likelihood
- One variable at a time
- Document results (positive or negative)

### Phase 4: Fix & Prevent
- Fix the root cause, not the symptom
- Add a regression test
- Document the lesson learned

## 📦 Install

```bash
git clone https://github.com/aptratcn/systematic-debugging.git
```

## 🔑 Trigger Words

`debug`, `fix error`, `bug`, `crash`, `not working`, `troubleshoot`

## 📄 License

MIT

_meta.json

{
  "ownerId": "kn74w4pv5ms0vhet3bstvw95a5833msw",
  "slug": "xiaobai-systematic-debugging",
  "version": "2.0.0",
  "publishedAt": 1776762636260
}

skill-card.md

## Description:

Systematic Debugging guides agents through a four-phase root cause debugging process that gathers evidence, narrows scope, forms a hypothesis, and verifies the fix.

This skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.

## Publisher:

[aptratcn](https://clawhub.ai/user/aptratcn)

### License/Terms of Use:

MIT-0

## Use Case:

Developers and engineers use this skill to guide software debugging work through evidence gathering, scope isolation, hypothesis formation, and verification before declaring a fix complete.

### Deployment Geography for Use:

Global

## Known Risks and Mitigations:

Risk: Broad trigger wording may activate the skill for general support requests that mention common debugging terms.

Mitigation: Confirm the user wants a structured debugging workflow before applying the full checklist, or narrow activation triggers during packaging.

Risk: Debugging guidance can lead to code or command proposals that are incorrect for the user's environment.

Mitigation: Require reproduction details, review proposed changes before execution, and verify with the original failing case and regression checks.

## Reference(s):


## Skill Output:

**Output Type(s):** [guidance, markdown, shell commands]

**Output Format:** [Markdown guidance with checklists and inline shell command examples]

**Output Parameters:** [1D]

**Other Properties Related to Output:** [The skill produces procedural debugging guidance and verification prompts rather than executing commands automatically.]

## Skill Version(s):

2.0.0 (source: frontmatter and server release evidence)

## Ethical Considerations:

Users should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.

Github ReposUpdated 3d agoRank 70

AionUi

Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!

MCPOPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

activepieces

AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents

OPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

cherry-studio

AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants.

MCPOPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 7mo agoRank 70

CopilotKit

The Frontend for Agents & Generative UI. React + Angular