[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6FXDW6P76S95Z45X6A2KB1B":3,"skill-same:01M6FXDW6P76S95Z45X6A2KB1B":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":31,"linkOnly":32,"markdownContent":33,"markdownBody":34,"frontMatter":35,"refName":36,"commitSha":37,"skillDirectory":38,"forksCount":14,"repositoryHtmlUrl":39,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":40,"ownerBlogUrl":41,"ownerDescription":42,"updatedAt":43,"install":44,"resources":57},"01M6FXDW6P76S95Z45X6A2KB1B","systematic-debugging",null,"Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes","reikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills","reikiplanet","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F96377599?v=4","01M6CVWCMD740YHQDK7E9QYBW4","Reiki Planet","01M6CVWCS4KXVA2CWFVJ43EAXK",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[18],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量","SCENARIO","使用场景",[24,25,26,27,28,29,30],"systematic debugging","debugging","systematic","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 `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\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- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)\n- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - 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 `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\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- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)\n- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - 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},"master","dff58085da947e81e8418c922055644bf0082b1b","other\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.reiki-planet.com","Reiki Planet Game","2026-03-29 06:02:29",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":45,"prompt":55,"zipAvailable":56},[46,49,52],{"tool":47,"command":48},"npx","npx skills add reikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":50,"command":51},"bunx","bunx skills add reikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":53,"command":54},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add reikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills --skill systematic-debugging","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-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\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-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\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002Fcondition-based-waiting.md",{"path":71,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":72,"sourceHtmlUrl":73},"CREATION-LOG.md",4268,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002FCREATION-LOG.md",{"path":75,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":76,"sourceHtmlUrl":77},"defense-in-depth.md",3650,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002Fdefense-in-depth.md",{"path":79,"resourceType":60,"resourceTypeDesc":61,"sizeBytes":80,"sourceHtmlUrl":81},"find-polluter.sh",1528,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002Ffind-polluter.sh",{"path":83,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":84,"sourceHtmlUrl":85},"root-cause-tracing.md",5327,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002Froot-cause-tracing.md",{"path":87,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":88,"sourceHtmlUrl":89},"test-academic.md",653,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002Ftest-academic.md",{"path":91,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":92,"sourceHtmlUrl":93},"test-pressure-1.md",1900,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002Ftest-pressure-1.md",{"path":95,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":96,"sourceHtmlUrl":97},"test-pressure-2.md",2283,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002Ftest-pressure-2.md",{"path":99,"resourceType":66,"resourceTypeDesc":67,"sizeBytes":100,"sourceHtmlUrl":101},"test-pressure-3.md",2692,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fother\u002Fsuperpowers-systematic-debugging\u002Ftest-pressure-3.md",[103,130,142,156,176,199],{"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":109,"publishedAt":31},"01M6G614JTEQJHPT8AKK3YQ18S","web-games","Web browser game development principles. Framework selection, WebGPU, optimization, PWA.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fweb-games\u002FSKILL.md",[],[110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129],"games","web games","web","grep","principles","selection","community","framework selection","edit","write","read","pwa","game","web browser","game development","Optimization","framework","browser","development","webgpu",{"skillNo":131,"name":132,"nameZh":6,"description":133,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":134,"categories":135,"keywords":136,"publishedAt":31},"01M6G611H2YGV0GZFP90D38ZMJ","vr-ar","VR\u002FAR development principles. Comfort, interaction, performance requirements.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fvr-ar\u002FSKILL.md",[],[137,138,128,139,140,116,118,119,120,113,141,114],"ar","vr ar","interaction","requirements","performance",{"skillNo":143,"name":144,"nameZh":6,"description":145,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":146,"categories":147,"keywords":148,"publishedAt":31},"01M6G60XNMHAMV1SV0EJ1CX0AY","templates","Project scaffolding templates for new applications. Use when creating new projects from scratch. Contains 12 templates for various tech stacks.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Ftemplates\u002FSKILL.md",[],[144,149,150,151,152,153,116,29,120,154,155,113],"project scaffolding","From Scratch","tech","project","scaffolding","projects","applications",{"skillNo":157,"name":158,"nameZh":6,"description":159,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":160,"categories":161,"keywords":162,"publishedAt":31},"01M6G60T0GATMK3Q5H8GDC1Z8S","wcag-audit-patterns","Conduct WCAG 2.2 accessibility audits with automated testing, manual verification, and remediation guidance. Use when auditing websites for accessibility, fixing WCAG violations, or implementing ac...","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fsecurity\u002Fwcag-audit-patterns\u002FSKILL.md",[],[163,164,165,166,167,116,168,169,170,171,29,172,173,174,175],"wcag audit patterns","wcag audit","patterns","WCAG","audit","manual","with","automated testing","guidance","remediation","verification","accessibility","testing",{"skillNo":177,"name":178,"nameZh":6,"description":179,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":180,"categories":181,"keywords":182,"publishedAt":31},"01M6G60PMCHW1FRZ63F931QK3R","vulnerability-scanner","Advanced vulnerability analysis principles. OWASP 2025, Supply Chain Security, attack surface mapping, risk prioritization.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fsecurity\u002Fvulnerability-scanner\u002FSKILL.md",[],[183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,116,120,113,191,114,192,193,194,195,196,197,198],"scanner","vulnerability scanner","vulnerability","prioritization","2025","mapping","chain","supply chain","Bash","analysis","risk","owasp","supply chain security","security","supply","advanced",{"skillNo":200,"name":201,"nameZh":6,"description":202,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":203,"categories":204,"keywords":205,"publishedAt":31},"01M6G60JZBB8DK0W3DSG1WNMZK","threat-modeling-expert","Expert in threat modeling methodologies, security architecture review, and risk assessment. Masters STRIDE, PASTA, attack trees, and security requirement extraction. Use for security architecture r...","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Freikiplanet\u002Fdaoskills\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fsecurity\u002Fthreat-modeling-expert\u002FSKILL.md",[],[206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,196,29,214,215,216,116,217,218,219,193,220,221],"modeling","threat modeling expert","threat modeling","expert","threat","risk assessment","architecture review","architecture","security architecture review","trees","security architecture","security requirement extraction","assessment","extraction","review","stride"]