[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6CRP5AHP4Q77Z2VEJBNCRHT":3,"skill-same:01M6CRP5AHP4Q77Z2VEJBNCRHT":100},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":22,"publishedAt":29,"linkOnly":30,"markdownContent":31,"markdownBody":32,"frontMatter":33,"refName":34,"commitSha":35,"skillDirectory":36,"forksCount":37,"repositoryHtmlUrl":38,"repositoryHomepageUrl":39,"ownerHtmlUrl":40,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":41,"install":42,"resources":55},"01M6CRP5AHP4Q77Z2VEJBNCRHT","systematic-debugging",null,"Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes","JsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team","JsonLee12138","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F160690954?v=4","01M6CRKT8H8MA8W638P9440WRV","01M6CRKTCSZEJGJSE7X4X8JZHT",33,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[17],{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量","SCENARIO","使用场景",[23,24,25,26,27,28],"systematic debugging","debugging","test","behavior","use","bug","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: systematic-debugging\ndescription: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes\n---\n\n# Systematic Debugging\n\n## Overview\n\nRandom fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.\n\n**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.\n\n**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**\n\n## The Iron Law\n\n```\nNO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST\n```\n\nIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse for ANY technical issue:\n- Test failures\n- Bugs in production\n- Unexpected behavior\n- Performance problems\n- Build failures\n- Integration issues\n\n**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**\n- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)\n- \"Just one quick fix\" seems obvious\n- You've already tried multiple fixes\n- Previous fix didn't work\n- You don't fully understand the issue\n\n**Don't skip when:**\n- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)\n- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)\n- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)\n\n## The Four Phases\n\nYou MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.\n\n### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation\n\n**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**\n\n1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**\n   - Don't skip past errors or warnings\n   - They often contain the exact solution\n   - Read stack traces completely\n   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes\n\n2. **Reproduce Consistently**\n   - Can you trigger it reliably?\n   - What are the exact steps?\n   - Does it happen every time?\n   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess\n\n3. **Check Recent Changes**\n   - What changed that could cause this?\n   - Git diff, recent commits\n   - New dependencies, config changes\n   - Environmental differences\n\n4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**\n\n   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**\n\n   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**\n   ```\n   For EACH component boundary:\n     - Log what data enters component\n     - Log what data exits component\n     - Verify environment\u002Fconfig propagation\n     - Check state at each layer\n\n   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks\n   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component\n   THEN investigate that specific component\n   ```\n\n   **Example (multi-layer system):**\n   ```bash\n   # Layer 1: Workflow\n   echo \"=== Secrets available in workflow: ===\"\n   echo \"IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}\"\n\n   # Layer 2: Build script\n   echo \"=== Env vars in build script: ===\"\n   env | grep IDENTITY || echo \"IDENTITY not in environment\"\n\n   # Layer 3: Signing script\n   echo \"=== Keychain state: ===\"\n   security list-keychains\n   security find-identity -v\n\n   # Layer 4: Actual signing\n   codesign --sign \"$IDENTITY\" --verbose=4 \"$APP\"\n   ```\n\n   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)\n\n5. **Trace Data Flow**\n\n   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**\n\n   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.\n\n   **Quick version:**\n   - Where does bad value originate?\n   - What called this with bad value?\n   - Keep tracing up until you find the source\n   - Fix at source, not at symptom\n\n### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis\n\n**Find the pattern before fixing:**\n\n1. **Find Working Examples**\n   - Locate similar working code in same codebase\n   - What works that's similar to what's broken?\n\n2. **Compare Against References**\n   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY\n   - Don't skim - read every line\n   - Understand the pattern fully before applying\n\n3. **Identify Differences**\n   - What's different between working and broken?\n   - List every difference, however small\n   - Don't assume \"that can't matter\"\n\n4. **Understand Dependencies**\n   - What other components does this need?\n   - What settings, config, environment?\n   - What assumptions does it make?\n\n### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing\n\n**Scientific method:**\n\n1. **Form Single Hypothesis**\n   - State clearly: \"I think X is the root cause because Y\"\n   - Write it down\n   - Be specific, not vague\n\n2. **Test Minimally**\n   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis\n   - One variable at a time\n   - Don't fix multiple things at once\n\n3. **Verify Before Continuing**\n   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4\n   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis\n   - DON'T add more fixes on top\n\n4. **When You Don't Know**\n   - Say \"I don't understand X\"\n   - Don't pretend to know\n   - Ask for help\n   - Research more\n\n### Phase 4: Implementation\n\n**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**\n\n1. **Create Failing Test Case**\n   - Simplest possible reproduction\n   - Automated test if possible\n   - One-off test script if no framework\n   - MUST have before fixing\n   - Use the `agent-team:tdd` skill for writing proper failing tests\n\n2. **Implement Single Fix**\n   - Address the root cause identified\n   - ONE change at a time\n   - No \"while I'm here\" improvements\n   - No bundled refactoring\n\n3. **Verify Fix**\n   - Test passes now?\n   - No other tests broken?\n   - Issue actually resolved?\n\n4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**\n   - STOP\n   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?\n   - If \u003C 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information\n   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**\n   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion\n\n5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**\n\n   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**\n   - Each fix reveals new shared state\u002Fcoupling\u002Fproblem in different place\n   - Fixes require \"massive refactoring\" to implement\n   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere\n\n   **STOP and question fundamentals:**\n   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?\n   - Are we \"sticking with it through sheer inertia\"?\n   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?\n\n   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**\n\n   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.\n\n## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process\n\nIf you catch yourself thinking:\n- \"Quick fix for now, investigate later\"\n- \"Just try changing X and see if it works\"\n- \"Add multiple changes, run tests\"\n- \"Skip the test, I'll manually verify\"\n- \"It's probably X, let me fix that\"\n- \"I don't fully understand but this might work\"\n- \"Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently\"\n- \"Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]\"\n- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow\n- **\"One more fix attempt\" (when already tried 2+)**\n- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**\n\n**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**\n\n**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)\n\n## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong\n\n**Watch for these redirections:**\n- \"Is that not happening?\" - You assumed without verifying\n- \"Will it show us...?\" - You should have added evidence gathering\n- \"Stop guessing\" - You're proposing fixes without understanding\n- \"Ultrathink this\" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms\n- \"We're stuck?\" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working\n\n**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"Issue is simple, don't need process\" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |\n| \"Emergency, no time for process\" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |\n| \"Just try this first, then investigate\" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |\n| \"I'll write test after confirming fix works\" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |\n| \"Multiple fixes at once saves time\" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |\n| \"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern\" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |\n| \"I see the problem, let me fix it\" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |\n| \"One more fix attempt\" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |\n\n## Quick Reference\n\n| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |\n|-------|---------------|------------------|\n| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |\n| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |\n| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |\n| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |\n\n## When Process Reveals \"No Root Cause\"\n\nIf systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:\n\n1. You've completed the process\n2. Document what you investigated\n3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)\n4. Add monitoring\u002Flogging for future investigation\n\n**But:** 95% of \"no root cause\" cases are incomplete investigation.\n\n## Supporting Techniques\n\nThese techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:\n\n- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger\n- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause\n- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling\n\n**Related skills:**\n- **agent-team:tdd** - For creating failing test case, verifying the fix, and not claiming completion before verification is done\n\n## Real-World Impact\n\nFrom debugging sessions:\n- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix\n- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing\n- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%\n- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common\n","# Systematic Debugging\n\n## Overview\n\nRandom fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.\n\n**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.\n\n**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**\n\n## The Iron Law\n\n```\nNO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST\n```\n\nIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse for ANY technical issue:\n- Test failures\n- Bugs in production\n- Unexpected behavior\n- Performance problems\n- Build failures\n- Integration issues\n\n**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**\n- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)\n- \"Just one quick fix\" seems obvious\n- You've already tried multiple fixes\n- Previous fix didn't work\n- You don't fully understand the issue\n\n**Don't skip when:**\n- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)\n- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)\n- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)\n\n## The Four Phases\n\nYou MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.\n\n### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation\n\n**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**\n\n1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**\n   - Don't skip past errors or warnings\n   - They often contain the exact solution\n   - Read stack traces completely\n   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes\n\n2. **Reproduce Consistently**\n   - Can you trigger it reliably?\n   - What are the exact steps?\n   - Does it happen every time?\n   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess\n\n3. **Check Recent Changes**\n   - What changed that could cause this?\n   - Git diff, recent commits\n   - New dependencies, config changes\n   - Environmental differences\n\n4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**\n\n   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**\n\n   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**\n   ```\n   For EACH component boundary:\n     - Log what data enters component\n     - Log what data exits component\n     - Verify environment\u002Fconfig propagation\n     - Check state at each layer\n\n   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks\n   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component\n   THEN investigate that specific component\n   ```\n\n   **Example (multi-layer system):**\n   ```bash\n   # Layer 1: Workflow\n   echo \"=== Secrets available in workflow: ===\"\n   echo \"IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}\"\n\n   # Layer 2: Build script\n   echo \"=== Env vars in build script: ===\"\n   env | grep IDENTITY || echo \"IDENTITY not in environment\"\n\n   # Layer 3: Signing script\n   echo \"=== Keychain state: ===\"\n   security list-keychains\n   security find-identity -v\n\n   # Layer 4: Actual signing\n   codesign --sign \"$IDENTITY\" --verbose=4 \"$APP\"\n   ```\n\n   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)\n\n5. **Trace Data Flow**\n\n   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**\n\n   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.\n\n   **Quick version:**\n   - Where does bad value originate?\n   - What called this with bad value?\n   - Keep tracing up until you find the source\n   - Fix at source, not at symptom\n\n### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis\n\n**Find the pattern before fixing:**\n\n1. **Find Working Examples**\n   - Locate similar working code in same codebase\n   - What works that's similar to what's broken?\n\n2. **Compare Against References**\n   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY\n   - Don't skim - read every line\n   - Understand the pattern fully before applying\n\n3. **Identify Differences**\n   - What's different between working and broken?\n   - List every difference, however small\n   - Don't assume \"that can't matter\"\n\n4. **Understand Dependencies**\n   - What other components does this need?\n   - What settings, config, environment?\n   - What assumptions does it make?\n\n### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing\n\n**Scientific method:**\n\n1. **Form Single Hypothesis**\n   - State clearly: \"I think X is the root cause because Y\"\n   - Write it down\n   - Be specific, not vague\n\n2. **Test Minimally**\n   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis\n   - One variable at a time\n   - Don't fix multiple things at once\n\n3. **Verify Before Continuing**\n   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4\n   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis\n   - DON'T add more fixes on top\n\n4. **When You Don't Know**\n   - Say \"I don't understand X\"\n   - Don't pretend to know\n   - Ask for help\n   - Research more\n\n### Phase 4: Implementation\n\n**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**\n\n1. **Create Failing Test Case**\n   - Simplest possible reproduction\n   - Automated test if possible\n   - One-off test script if no framework\n   - MUST have before fixing\n   - Use the `agent-team:tdd` skill for writing proper failing tests\n\n2. **Implement Single Fix**\n   - Address the root cause identified\n   - ONE change at a time\n   - No \"while I'm here\" improvements\n   - No bundled refactoring\n\n3. **Verify Fix**\n   - Test passes now?\n   - No other tests broken?\n   - Issue actually resolved?\n\n4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**\n   - STOP\n   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?\n   - If \u003C 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information\n   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**\n   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion\n\n5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**\n\n   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**\n   - Each fix reveals new shared state\u002Fcoupling\u002Fproblem in different place\n   - Fixes require \"massive refactoring\" to implement\n   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere\n\n   **STOP and question fundamentals:**\n   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?\n   - Are we \"sticking with it through sheer inertia\"?\n   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?\n\n   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**\n\n   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.\n\n## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process\n\nIf you catch yourself thinking:\n- \"Quick fix for now, investigate later\"\n- \"Just try changing X and see if it works\"\n- \"Add multiple changes, run tests\"\n- \"Skip the test, I'll manually verify\"\n- \"It's probably X, let me fix that\"\n- \"I don't fully understand but this might work\"\n- \"Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently\"\n- \"Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]\"\n- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow\n- **\"One more fix attempt\" (when already tried 2+)**\n- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**\n\n**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**\n\n**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)\n\n## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong\n\n**Watch for these redirections:**\n- \"Is that not happening?\" - You assumed without verifying\n- \"Will it show us...?\" - You should have added evidence gathering\n- \"Stop guessing\" - You're proposing fixes without understanding\n- \"Ultrathink this\" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms\n- \"We're stuck?\" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working\n\n**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"Issue is simple, don't need process\" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |\n| \"Emergency, no time for process\" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |\n| \"Just try this first, then investigate\" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |\n| \"I'll write test after confirming fix works\" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |\n| \"Multiple fixes at once saves time\" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |\n| \"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern\" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |\n| \"I see the problem, let me fix it\" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |\n| \"One more fix attempt\" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |\n\n## Quick Reference\n\n| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |\n|-------|---------------|------------------|\n| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |\n| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |\n| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |\n| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |\n\n## When Process Reveals \"No Root Cause\"\n\nIf systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:\n\n1. You've completed the process\n2. Document what you investigated\n3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)\n4. Add monitoring\u002Flogging for future investigation\n\n**But:** 95% of \"no root cause\" cases are incomplete investigation.\n\n## Supporting Techniques\n\nThese techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:\n\n- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger\n- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause\n- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling\n\n**Related skills:**\n- **agent-team:tdd** - For creating failing test case, verifying the fix, and not claiming completion before verification is done\n\n## Real-World Impact\n\nFrom debugging sessions:\n- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix\n- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing\n- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%\n- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","4418944aaff7696bfb2cec18db747ade50817966","skills\u002Fsystematic-debugging",3,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team","https:\u002F\u002Frole-hub.vercel.app\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138","2026-03-30 10:24:45",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":43,"prompt":53,"zipAvailable":54},[44,47,50],{"tool":45,"command":46},"npx","npx skills add JsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":48,"command":49},"bunx","bunx skills add JsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":51,"command":52},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add JsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team --skill systematic-debugging","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",true,[56,62,68,72,76,80,84,88,92,96],{"path":57,"resourceType":58,"resourceTypeDesc":59,"sizeBytes":60,"sourceHtmlUrl":61},"condition-based-waiting-example.ts","SCRIPT","脚本",5054,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fcondition-based-waiting-example.ts",{"path":63,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":66,"sourceHtmlUrl":67},"condition-based-waiting.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",3516,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fcondition-based-waiting.md",{"path":69,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":70,"sourceHtmlUrl":71},"CREATION-LOG.md",4268,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FCREATION-LOG.md",{"path":73,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":74,"sourceHtmlUrl":75},"defense-in-depth.md",3650,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fdefense-in-depth.md",{"path":77,"resourceType":58,"resourceTypeDesc":59,"sizeBytes":78,"sourceHtmlUrl":79},"find-polluter.sh",1528,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ffind-polluter.sh",{"path":81,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":82,"sourceHtmlUrl":83},"root-cause-tracing.md",5327,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Froot-cause-tracing.md",{"path":85,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":86,"sourceHtmlUrl":87},"test-academic.md",653,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ftest-academic.md",{"path":89,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":90,"sourceHtmlUrl":91},"test-pressure-1.md",1900,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ftest-pressure-1.md",{"path":93,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":94,"sourceHtmlUrl":95},"test-pressure-2.md",2283,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ftest-pressure-2.md",{"path":97,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":98,"sourceHtmlUrl":99},"test-pressure-3.md",2692,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ftest-pressure-3.md",[101,124,138,153,164,174],{"skillNo":102,"name":103,"nameZh":6,"description":104,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":105,"categories":106,"keywords":110,"publishedAt":29},"01M6CRPTZHE0ZXSGTNJR4R2M5R","workflow-orchestrator","Governance-only workflow plan entry for controller and human sessions. Use when the user asks to generate, approve, activate, or close workflow plans through `agent-team workflow plan`.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fworkflow-orchestrator\u002FSKILL.md",[107],{"categoryNo":108,"categoryName":109,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[111,112,113,114,115,116,117,27,118,119,120,121,122,123],"workflow","orchestrator","workflow orchestrator","workflow plan","activate","team","only","user","plan","sessions","governance","generate","controller",{"skillNo":125,"name":126,"nameZh":6,"description":127,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":128,"categories":129,"keywords":130,"publishedAt":29},"01M6CRPS54Q5XSN409CR0RPZQ7","worker-reply-main","Worker-first reporting entry for sending completion, blocker, or decision-needed messages back to main through `agent-team reply-main`.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fworker-reply-main\u002FSKILL.md",[],[131,34,132,133,134,135,116,136,137],"reply","worker reply main","messages","reporting","first","decision","back",{"skillNo":139,"name":140,"nameZh":6,"description":141,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":142,"categories":143,"keywords":144,"publishedAt":29},"01M6CRPQBDAQ7147TTNJ99DDMM","worker-recovery","Worker-first recovery entry for resuming the current assignment from file artifacts. Use when a worker needs to recover task context, continue work, or re-anchor after a pause.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fworker-recovery\u002FSKILL.md",[],[145,146,147,148,149,27,150,135,151,152],"recovery","worker recovery","continue","work","context","task","artifacts","file",{"skillNo":154,"name":155,"nameZh":6,"description":156,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":157,"categories":158,"keywords":159,"publishedAt":29},"01M6CRPNF2SKS2MQXFDZHXXGCM","worker-inspector","Read-only worker inspection skill for controller and human sessions. Use when the user wants to view worker status without opening a worker or sending a reply.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fworker-inspector\u002FSKILL.md",[],[160,120,161,123,162,163,118,27,117,131],"worker inspector","status","read","view",{"skillNo":165,"name":166,"nameZh":6,"description":167,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":168,"categories":169,"keywords":170,"publishedAt":29},"01M6CRPKRNYGB80NN30TBKYCDJ","worker-dispatch","Controller-side worker dispatch entry for opening workers, checking targeted worker status, and replying to workers with existing `agent-team worker` and `agent-team reply` commands.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fworker-dispatch\u002FSKILL.md",[],[171,172,123,161,116,173,131],"worker dispatch","dispatch","workers",{"skillNo":175,"name":176,"nameZh":6,"description":177,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":178,"categories":179,"keywords":180,"publishedAt":29},"01M6CRPH4EWCKQ9CD8JR5G5Z6Z","tdd","Acceptance-first TDD workflow for solo implementation work. Use when handling a coding change directly and you want to follow a disciplined sequence: read context, define acceptance criteria, write failing tests when feasible, implement, verify, and conclude with passed, failed, or skipped with reason.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FJsonLee12138\u002Fagent-team\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftdd\u002FSKILL.md",[],[176,181,111,182,183,184,135,185,186,148,162,187,149,27,188,189],"implement","change","acceptance","tdd workflow","verify","coding","write","implementation","acceptance criteria"]