[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6C34FM49EWP91A6FMPER068":3,"skill-same:01M6C34FM49EWP91A6FMPER068":102},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":23,"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":41,"ownerDescription":42,"updatedAt":43,"install":44,"resources":57},"01M6C34FM49EWP91A6FMPER068","systematic-debugging",null,"Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes","IgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer","IgorGanapolsky","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F201209?v=4","01M6C2WB7720K13ERYVB3AJ0SQ","Igor Ganapolsky","01M6C2WBBF0NWVQV4A89FS00Q5",1,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[18],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量","SCENARIO","使用场景",[24,25,26,27,28],"systematic debugging","debugging","test","behavior","use","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\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 `superpowers:test-driven-development` 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   - Use the `superpowers:verification-before-completion` skill before claiming success\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- \"Ultra-think 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","# Systematic Debugging\n\n## Overview\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 `superpowers:test-driven-development` 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   - Use the `superpowers:verification-before-completion` skill before claiming success\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- \"Ultra-think 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",{"name":5,"description":7},"develop","4af946ac9a2b3cfbbe9b2e8696cc436f1d16e2e2",".claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer","https:\u002F\u002Fapps.apple.com\u002Fus\u002Fapp\u002Frandom-tactical-timer\u002Fid6758355312","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.igorganapolsky.com","Forward Deploy AI Engineer. Automation specialist.\r\n","2026-11-09 23:14:20",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":45,"prompt":55,"zipAvailable":56},[46,49,52],{"tool":47,"command":48},"npx","npx skills add IgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":50,"command":51},"bunx","bunx skills add IgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":53,"command":54},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add IgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer --skill systematic-debugging","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",true,[58,64,70,74,78,82,86,90,94,98],{"path":59,"resourceType":60,"resourceTypeDesc":61,"sizeBytes":62,"sourceHtmlUrl":63},"condition-based-waiting-example.ts","SCRIPT","脚本",5054,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fcondition-based-waiting-example.ts",{"path":65,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":68,"sourceHtmlUrl":69},"condition-based-waiting.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",3516,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fcondition-based-waiting.md",{"path":71,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":72,"sourceHtmlUrl":73},"CREATION-LOG.md",4257,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FCREATION-LOG.md",{"path":75,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":76,"sourceHtmlUrl":77},"defense-in-depth.md",3650,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fdefense-in-depth.md",{"path":79,"resourceType":60,"resourceTypeDesc":61,"sizeBytes":80,"sourceHtmlUrl":81},"find-polluter.sh",1986,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ffind-polluter.sh",{"path":83,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":84,"sourceHtmlUrl":85},"root-cause-tracing.md",5316,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Froot-cause-tracing.md",{"path":87,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":88,"sourceHtmlUrl":89},"test-academic.md",653,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ftest-academic.md",{"path":91,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":92,"sourceHtmlUrl":93},"test-pressure-1.md",1900,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ftest-pressure-1.md",{"path":95,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":96,"sourceHtmlUrl":97},"test-pressure-2.md",2283,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ftest-pressure-2.md",{"path":99,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":100,"sourceHtmlUrl":101},"test-pressure-3.md",2692,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ftest-pressure-3.md",[103,122,141,152,164,175],{"skillNo":104,"name":105,"nameZh":6,"description":106,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":107,"categories":108,"keywords":117,"publishedAt":29},"01M6C3CEGAENG02BPG636N9WG6","writing-plans","Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.cursor\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[109,112],{"categoryNo":110,"categoryName":111,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":113,"categoryName":114,"taxonomyType":115,"taxonomyTypeDesc":116},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[118,119,120,121,28],"writing plans","writing","spec","code",{"skillNo":123,"name":124,"nameZh":6,"description":125,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":126,"categories":127,"keywords":131,"publishedAt":29},"01M6C3CC40GJBTJQHQ5BF7CQN9","workflow-economics-lite","Escape AI pilot purgatory: require completion-loop workflows with one owner, baseline, economic metric, system-of-record integration, and audit trail. Block orphan chatbots and interest-as-ROI claims.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.cursor\u002Fskills\u002Fworkflow-economics-lite\u002FSKILL.md",[128],{"categoryNo":129,"categoryName":130,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140],"workflow economics lite","workflow","loop","roi","workflows","audit","integration","baseline","system",{"skillNo":142,"name":143,"nameZh":6,"description":144,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":145,"categories":146,"keywords":147,"publishedAt":29},"01M6C3C9ESBW612NMMMBQDWSWR","verification-before-completion","Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.cursor\u002Fskills\u002Fverification-before-completion\u002FSKILL.md",[],[148,149,28,150,151],"verification before completion","verification","evidence","work",{"skillNo":153,"name":154,"nameZh":6,"description":155,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":156,"categories":157,"keywords":158,"publishedAt":29},"01M6C3C71DNQHJ6PGV0TN1R99N","value-center-lite","Apply InfoQ Rohrer value-center \u002F VSM five questions (agency + coherence). Use when planning work, shipping releases, or auditing agent autonomy claims. Fail closed on product-only slogans without WQTU\u002Fpaywall value.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.cursor\u002Fskills\u002Fvalue-center-lite\u002FSKILL.md",[],[159,160,28,151,161,162,163],"value center lite","only","product","shipping","planning",{"skillNo":165,"name":166,"nameZh":6,"description":167,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":168,"categories":169,"keywords":170,"publishedAt":29},"01M6C3C41Q0R2J49F3Q4CQ004J","using-superpowers","Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring skill invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.cursor\u002Fskills\u002Fusing-superpowers\u002FSKILL.md",[],[171,172,28,173,174],"superpowers","using superpowers","find","how",{"skillNo":176,"name":177,"nameZh":6,"description":178,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":179,"categories":180,"keywords":181,"publishedAt":29},"01M6C3C1EBYXRVMNHZZE9N49PN","using-git-worktrees","Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FIgorGanapolsky\u002FRandom-Timer\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.cursor\u002Fskills\u002Fusing-git-worktrees\u002FSKILL.md",[],[182,183,184,185,186,187,188,151,28],"git","using git worktrees","git worktrees","git worktree","Tools","worktree","workspace"]