[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6CP1XAVG8H579XCMB5BFA53":3,"skill-same:01M6CP1XAVG8H579XCMB5BFA53":89},{"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":43,"linkOnly":44,"markdownContent":45,"markdownBody":46,"frontMatter":47,"refName":48,"commitSha":49,"skillDirectory":50,"forksCount":51,"repositoryHtmlUrl":52,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":53,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":54,"install":55,"resources":68},"01M6CP1XAVG8H579XCMB5BFA53","debugging",null,"Enforces systematic root-cause investigation before any fix attempt, using a four-phase process (investigate, analyze patterns, hypothesize, implement). Use when encountering bugs, test failures, build errors, unexpected behavior, performance problems, or integration issues — especially when under pressure, when a \"quick fix\" seems obvious, or when previous fix attempts have failed. DO NOT TRIGGER for new feature development or refactoring without a known defect.","shousper\u002Fclanker-kit","shousper","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F1144345?v=4","01M6CP153W30NV9J1XT8K98G4J","Corey McGregor","01M6CP157WFP2WEFX4TJH7JVPG",5,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fskills\u002Fdebugging\u002FSKILL.md",[18],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量","SCENARIO","使用场景",[5,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42],"analyze","patterns","do","build","root-cause","use","process","new feature","fix","behavior","performance","refactoring","investigate","investigation","integration","issues","development","test","implement","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: debugging\ndescription: Enforces systematic root-cause investigation before any fix attempt, using a four-phase process (investigate, analyze patterns, hypothesize, implement). Use when encountering bugs, test failures, build errors, unexpected behavior, performance problems, or integration issues — especially when under pressure, when a \"quick fix\" seems obvious, or when previous fix attempts have failed. DO NOT TRIGGER for new feature development or refactoring without a known defect.\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 `kit: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- **kit:tdd** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)\n- **kit:verify** - Verify fix worked before claiming success\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 `kit: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- **kit:tdd** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)\n- **kit:verify** - Verify fix worked before claiming success\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","ffcb87b7a18526a98eccab20c8c12526bb10af96","shared\u002Fskills\u002Fdebugging",2,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper","2026-10-27 23:43:43",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":56,"prompt":66,"zipAvailable":67},[57,60,63],{"tool":58,"command":59},"npx","npx skills add shousper\u002Fclanker-kit --skill debugging",{"tool":61,"command":62},"bunx","bunx skills add shousper\u002Fclanker-kit --skill debugging",{"tool":64,"command":65},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add shousper\u002Fclanker-kit --skill debugging","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fskills\u002Fdebugging\u002FSKILL.md",true,[69,75,81,85],{"path":70,"resourceType":71,"resourceTypeDesc":72,"sizeBytes":73,"sourceHtmlUrl":74},"condition-based-waiting-example.ts","SCRIPT","脚本",5054,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fskills\u002Fdebugging\u002Fcondition-based-waiting-example.ts",{"path":76,"resourceType":77,"resourceTypeDesc":78,"sizeBytes":79,"sourceHtmlUrl":80},"condition-based-waiting.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",3516,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fskills\u002Fdebugging\u002Fcondition-based-waiting.md",{"path":82,"resourceType":77,"resourceTypeDesc":78,"sizeBytes":83,"sourceHtmlUrl":84},"defense-in-depth.md",3650,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fskills\u002Fdebugging\u002Fdefense-in-depth.md",{"path":86,"resourceType":77,"resourceTypeDesc":78,"sizeBytes":87,"sourceHtmlUrl":88},"root-cause-tracing.md",5519,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fskills\u002Fdebugging\u002Froot-cause-tracing.md",[90,125,150,166,185,198],{"skillNo":91,"name":92,"nameZh":6,"description":93,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":94,"categories":95,"keywords":107,"publishedAt":43},"01M6CP3FKPXFKQBY5979X2W9GN","writing-docs","Use when creating or editing documentation of any kind, including Markdown, RST, or HTML pages, READMEs, design docs, ADRs, changelogs, docstrings, and comment blocks. Covers document purpose, headings, paragraphs, lists, procedures, notices, cross-references, code samples, placeholders, example data, and word choice for technical writing.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fwriting\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-docs\u002FSKILL.md",[96,99,102],{"categoryNo":97,"categoryName":98,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000002","文档处理",{"categoryNo":100,"categoryName":101,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":103,"categoryName":104,"taxonomyType":105,"taxonomyTypeDesc":106},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,29,121,122,123,124],"writing","docs","writing docs","design","technical writing","documentation","code","data","markdown","Word","choice","editing","technical","html","example","document","references",{"skillNo":126,"name":127,"nameZh":6,"description":128,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":129,"categories":130,"keywords":131,"publishedAt":43},"01M6CP3CHHC5S3FG5DS38W6PP8","work","Runs the story worker loop in a story-workflow project — claim ready stories, implement each in its own worktree, close through verification gates, repeat until the goal is met or the loop stalls. Use when asked to \"work the board\", \"complete all stories\", \"work on epic st-XXXX\", \"pick up the next story\", \"start a worker\", or to resume or continue a story run — and when a loop re-prompt names the next story in a session that started the loop. DO NOT TRIGGER without .agents\u002Fshousper-stories\u002Fconfig.json (use stories:setup first), for decomposing a spec into stories (stories:plan), or to stop a run (stories:cancel).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fstories\u002Fskills\u002Fwork\u002FSKILL.md",[],[127,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,26,148,149],"workflow","config","run","verification","worktree","start","loop","plan","work on","pick","verification gates","session","ready","up","goal","stop","claim","next",{"skillNo":151,"name":152,"nameZh":6,"description":153,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":154,"categories":155,"keywords":156,"publishedAt":43},"01M6CP39QNRN136HV0F62TMS7P","using-stories","Compressed story-workflow rulebook, injected automatically at session start (including after compaction) in projects with .agents\u002Fshousper-stories\u002Fconfig.json. Use when unsure of the workflow rules mid-session, when asked \"how does the story workflow work here\", or for a story CLI quick reference. DO NOT TRIGGER in projects without .agents\u002Fshousper-stories\u002Fconfig.json, to set up the workflow (stories:setup), to file stories (stories:plan), or to run the loop (stories:work).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fstories\u002Fskills\u002Fusing-stories\u002FSKILL.md",[],[157,158,132,133,159,134,137,160,161,138,139,162,163,164,127,143,29,145,165,26],"using stories","cli","quick reference","SET","how","projects","json","Rules","reference",{"skillNo":167,"name":168,"nameZh":6,"description":169,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":170,"categories":171,"keywords":175,"publishedAt":43},"01M6CP36Y3D5S74HQQX62D6SMC","setup","Interactive onboarding that turns a repo into a story-workflow project — merge-mode choice, verification gates with test-runner detection, gitignore wiring, optional project-specific reviewer personas. Use when asked to \"set up the story workflow\", \"adopt stories\", \"story init\", \"install the story board\", or when stories:plan \u002F stories:work is wanted but .agents\u002Fshousper-stories\u002Fconfig.json does not exist yet. DO NOT TRIGGER when .agents\u002Fshousper-stories\u002Fconfig.json already exists (use stories:plan to file work, stories:work to execute it), for creating individual stories, or for project scaffolding unrelated to the story workflow.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fstories\u002Fskills\u002Fsetup\u002FSKILL.md",[172],{"categoryNo":173,"categoryName":174,"taxonomyType":105,"taxonomyTypeDesc":106},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000038","人力资源",[168,132,41,176,135,177,160,118,178,127,179,142,180,29,145,26,181,182,183,184],"init","file","reviewer","repo","interactive","personas","runner","gitignore","test-runner",{"skillNo":186,"name":139,"nameZh":6,"description":187,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":188,"categories":189,"keywords":190,"publishedAt":43},"01M6CP33ZJE0SNZAK43Z5RGPDQ","Decomposes a spec or approved design into epics and stories on the story board — sized, dependency-ordered, gated, human-approved, then filed via the story CLI. Use in a project with .agents\u002Fshousper-stories\u002Fconfig.json when there is a design doc (often from kit:brainstorming), spec, requirements file, or feature request to break down; it replaces kit:writing-plans in the workflow chain for story-based projects. Also use for \"file stories\", \"break this into stories\", \"populate the board\". DO NOT TRIGGER in projects without .agents\u002Fshousper-stories\u002Fconfig.json (use kit:writing-plans), for executing stories (stories:work), or for filing a single discovered-work story mid-loop (plain story create).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fstories\u002Fskills\u002Fplan\u002FSKILL.md",[],[139,111,108,158,191,132,133,192,193,177,138,162,163,194,127,195,29,196,26,197],"spec","brainstorming","create","design doc","board","dependency","gated",{"skillNo":199,"name":200,"nameZh":6,"description":201,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":202,"categories":203,"keywords":204,"publishedAt":43},"01M6CP31SH1DH78VYHRKEW8HK7","cancel","Stops an active story loop and reports where the board stands. Use when asked to \"stop the loop\", \"cancel the story run\", \"halt autonomous story work\", \"kill the worker loop\", or when a runaway run must be shut down. DO NOT TRIGGER for closing a single story (that is story done inside stories:work), for deleting or archiving stories, or for removing the story workflow from a project.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fshousper\u002Fclanker-kit\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fshared\u002Fstories\u002Fskills\u002Fcancel\u002FSKILL.md",[],[200,132,134,138,127,195,205,29,206,207,147,208,26,209],"autonomous","reports","Story","kill","done"]