[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M7EWHZSC7BWM82VFJC73ZSFC":3,"skill-same:01M7EWHZSC7BWM82VFJC73ZSFC":48},{"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":18,"publishedAt":19,"linkOnly":20,"markdownContent":21,"markdownBody":22,"frontMatter":23,"refName":26,"commitSha":27,"skillDirectory":28,"forksCount":29,"repositoryHtmlUrl":30,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":31,"ownerBlogUrl":32,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":33,"install":34,"resources":47},"01M7EWHZSC7BWM82VFJC73ZSFC","agent-introspection-debugging",null,"Structured self-debugging workflow for AI agent failures using capture, diagnosis, contained recovery, and introspection reports. Use when an agent run fails and you need a reproducible diagnosis instead of a retry.","TanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis","TanNhatCMS","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F113796420?v=4","01M753MV17KG5CD3152G3WQEQY","KietNT","01M7EKEDYVYQ6PWVJJMZ911VMX",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fecc-agent-introspection-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],"2026-11-15 14:19:17",false,"---\nname: agent-introspection-debugging\ndescription: Structured self-debugging workflow for AI agent failures using capture, diagnosis, contained recovery, and introspection reports. Use when an agent run fails and you need a reproducible diagnosis instead of a retry.\nmetadata:\n  origin: ECC\n---\n\n# Agent Introspection Debugging\n\nUse this skill when an agent run is failing repeatedly, consuming tokens without progress, looping on the same tools, or drifting away from the intended task.\n\nThis is a workflow skill, not a hidden runtime. It teaches the agent to debug itself systematically before escalating to a human.\n\n## When to Activate\n\n- Maximum tool call \u002F loop-limit failures\n- Repeated retries with no forward progress\n- Context growth or prompt drift that starts degrading output quality\n- File-system or environment state mismatch between expectation and reality\n- Tool failures that are likely recoverable with diagnosis and a smaller corrective action\n\n## Scope Boundaries\n\nActivate this skill for:\n- capturing failure state before retrying blindly\n- diagnosing common agent-specific failure patterns\n- applying contained recovery actions\n- producing a structured human-readable debug report\n\nDo not use this skill as the primary source for:\n- feature verification after code changes; use `verification-loop`\n- framework-specific debugging when a narrower ECC skill already exists\n- runtime promises the current harness cannot enforce automatically\n\n## Four-Phase Loop\n\n### Phase 1: Failure Capture\n\nBefore trying to recover, record the failure precisely.\n\nCapture:\n- error type, message, and stack trace when available\n- last meaningful tool call sequence\n- what the agent was trying to do\n- current context pressure: repeated prompts, oversized pasted logs, duplicated plans, or runaway notes\n- current environment assumptions: cwd, branch, relevant service state, expected files\n\nMinimum capture template:\n\n```markdown\n## Failure Capture\n- Session \u002F task:\n- Goal in progress:\n- Error:\n- Last successful step:\n- Last failed tool \u002F command:\n- Repeated pattern seen:\n- Environment assumptions to verify:\n```\n\n### Phase 2: Root-Cause Diagnosis\n\nMatch the failure to a known pattern before changing anything.\n\n| Pattern | Likely Cause | Check |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Maximum tool calls \u002F repeated same command | loop or no-exit observer path | inspect the last N tool calls for repetition |\n| Context overflow \u002F degraded reasoning | unbounded notes, repeated plans, oversized logs | inspect recent context for duplication and low-signal bulk |\n| `ECONNREFUSED` \u002F timeout | service unavailable or wrong port | verify service health, URL, and port assumptions |\n| `429` \u002F quota exhaustion | retry storm or missing backoff | count repeated calls and inspect retry spacing |\n| file missing after write \u002F stale diff | race, wrong cwd, or branch drift | re-check path, cwd, git status, and actual file existence |\n| tests still failing after “fix” | wrong hypothesis | isolate the exact failing test and re-derive the bug |\n\nDiagnosis questions:\n- is this a logic failure, state failure, environment failure, or policy failure?\n- did the agent lose the real objective and start optimizing the wrong subtask?\n- is the failure deterministic or transient?\n- what is the smallest reversible action that would validate the diagnosis?\n\n### Phase 3: Contained Recovery\n\nRecover with the smallest action that changes the diagnosis surface.\n\nSafe recovery actions:\n- stop repeated retries and restate the hypothesis\n- trim low-signal context and keep only the active goal, blockers, and evidence\n- re-check the actual filesystem \u002F branch \u002F process state\n- narrow the task to one failing command, one file, or one test\n- switch from speculative reasoning to direct observation\n- escalate to a human when the failure is high-risk or externally blocked\n\nDo not claim unsupported auto-healing actions like “reset agent state” or “update harness config” unless you are actually doing them through real tools in the current environment.\n\nContained recovery checklist:\n\n```markdown\n## Recovery Action\n- Diagnosis chosen:\n- Smallest action taken:\n- Why this is safe:\n- What evidence would prove the fix worked:\n```\n\n### Phase 4: Introspection Report\n\nEnd with a report that makes the recovery legible to the next agent or human.\n\n```markdown\n## Agent Self-Debug Report\n- Session \u002F task:\n- Failure:\n- Root cause:\n- Recovery action:\n- Result: success | partial | blocked\n- Token \u002F time burn risk:\n- Follow-up needed:\n- Preventive change to encode later:\n```\n\n## Recovery Heuristics\n\nPrefer these interventions in order:\n\n1. Restate the real objective in one sentence.\n2. Verify the world state instead of trusting memory.\n3. Shrink the failing scope.\n4. Run one discriminating check.\n5. Only then retry.\n\nBad pattern:\n- retrying the same action three times with slightly different wording\n\nGood pattern:\n- capture failure\n- classify the pattern\n- run one direct check\n- change the plan only if the check supports it\n\n## Integration with ECC\n\n- Use `verification-loop` after recovery if code was changed.\n- Use `continuous-learning-v2` when the failure pattern is worth turning into an instinct or later skill.\n- Use `council` when the issue is not technical failure but decision ambiguity.\n- Use `workspace-surface-audit` if the failure came from conflicting local state or repo drift.\n\n## Output Standard\n\nWhen this skill is active, do not end with “I fixed it” alone.\n\nAlways provide:\n- the failure pattern\n- the root-cause hypothesis\n- the recovery action\n- the evidence that the situation is now better or still blocked\n","# Agent Introspection Debugging\n\nUse this skill when an agent run is failing repeatedly, consuming tokens without progress, looping on the same tools, or drifting away from the intended task.\n\nThis is a workflow skill, not a hidden runtime. It teaches the agent to debug itself systematically before escalating to a human.\n\n## When to Activate\n\n- Maximum tool call \u002F loop-limit failures\n- Repeated retries with no forward progress\n- Context growth or prompt drift that starts degrading output quality\n- File-system or environment state mismatch between expectation and reality\n- Tool failures that are likely recoverable with diagnosis and a smaller corrective action\n\n## Scope Boundaries\n\nActivate this skill for:\n- capturing failure state before retrying blindly\n- diagnosing common agent-specific failure patterns\n- applying contained recovery actions\n- producing a structured human-readable debug report\n\nDo not use this skill as the primary source for:\n- feature verification after code changes; use `verification-loop`\n- framework-specific debugging when a narrower ECC skill already exists\n- runtime promises the current harness cannot enforce automatically\n\n## Four-Phase Loop\n\n### Phase 1: Failure Capture\n\nBefore trying to recover, record the failure precisely.\n\nCapture:\n- error type, message, and stack trace when available\n- last meaningful tool call sequence\n- what the agent was trying to do\n- current context pressure: repeated prompts, oversized pasted logs, duplicated plans, or runaway notes\n- current environment assumptions: cwd, branch, relevant service state, expected files\n\nMinimum capture template:\n\n```markdown\n## Failure Capture\n- Session \u002F task:\n- Goal in progress:\n- Error:\n- Last successful step:\n- Last failed tool \u002F command:\n- Repeated pattern seen:\n- Environment assumptions to verify:\n```\n\n### Phase 2: Root-Cause Diagnosis\n\nMatch the failure to a known pattern before changing anything.\n\n| Pattern | Likely Cause | Check |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Maximum tool calls \u002F repeated same command | loop or no-exit observer path | inspect the last N tool calls for repetition |\n| Context overflow \u002F degraded reasoning | unbounded notes, repeated plans, oversized logs | inspect recent context for duplication and low-signal bulk |\n| `ECONNREFUSED` \u002F timeout | service unavailable or wrong port | verify service health, URL, and port assumptions |\n| `429` \u002F quota exhaustion | retry storm or missing backoff | count repeated calls and inspect retry spacing |\n| file missing after write \u002F stale diff | race, wrong cwd, or branch drift | re-check path, cwd, git status, and actual file existence |\n| tests still failing after “fix” | wrong hypothesis | isolate the exact failing test and re-derive the bug |\n\nDiagnosis questions:\n- is this a logic failure, state failure, environment failure, or policy failure?\n- did the agent lose the real objective and start optimizing the wrong subtask?\n- is the failure deterministic or transient?\n- what is the smallest reversible action that would validate the diagnosis?\n\n### Phase 3: Contained Recovery\n\nRecover with the smallest action that changes the diagnosis surface.\n\nSafe recovery actions:\n- stop repeated retries and restate the hypothesis\n- trim low-signal context and keep only the active goal, blockers, and evidence\n- re-check the actual filesystem \u002F branch \u002F process state\n- narrow the task to one failing command, one file, or one test\n- switch from speculative reasoning to direct observation\n- escalate to a human when the failure is high-risk or externally blocked\n\nDo not claim unsupported auto-healing actions like “reset agent state” or “update harness config” unless you are actually doing them through real tools in the current environment.\n\nContained recovery checklist:\n\n```markdown\n## Recovery Action\n- Diagnosis chosen:\n- Smallest action taken:\n- Why this is safe:\n- What evidence would prove the fix worked:\n```\n\n### Phase 4: Introspection Report\n\nEnd with a report that makes the recovery legible to the next agent or human.\n\n```markdown\n## Agent Self-Debug Report\n- Session \u002F task:\n- Failure:\n- Root cause:\n- Recovery action:\n- Result: success | partial | blocked\n- Token \u002F time burn risk:\n- Follow-up needed:\n- Preventive change to encode later:\n```\n\n## Recovery Heuristics\n\nPrefer these interventions in order:\n\n1. Restate the real objective in one sentence.\n2. Verify the world state instead of trusting memory.\n3. Shrink the failing scope.\n4. Run one discriminating check.\n5. Only then retry.\n\nBad pattern:\n- retrying the same action three times with slightly different wording\n\nGood pattern:\n- capture failure\n- classify the pattern\n- run one direct check\n- change the plan only if the check supports it\n\n## Integration with ECC\n\n- Use `verification-loop` after recovery if code was changed.\n- Use `continuous-learning-v2` when the failure pattern is worth turning into an instinct or later skill.\n- Use `council` when the issue is not technical failure but decision ambiguity.\n- Use `workspace-surface-audit` if the failure came from conflicting local state or repo drift.\n\n## Output Standard\n\nWhen this skill is active, do not end with “I fixed it” alone.\n\nAlways provide:\n- the failure pattern\n- the root-cause hypothesis\n- the recovery action\n- the evidence that the situation is now better or still blocked\n",{"name":5,"metadata":24,"description":7},{"origin":25},"ECC","main","af388a77c2fe5e0b4fd879cca4300a0ffa9a6579","skills\u002Fecc-agent-introspection-debugging",1,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS","https:\u002F\u002Fmrkiet.name.vn","2026-11-07 14:23:08",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":35,"prompt":45,"zipAvailable":46},[36,39,42],{"tool":37,"command":38},"npx","npx skills add TanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis --skill agent-introspection-debugging",{"tool":40,"command":41},"bunx","bunx skills add TanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis --skill agent-introspection-debugging",{"tool":43,"command":44},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add TanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis --skill agent-introspection-debugging","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fecc-agent-introspection-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[49,56,64,71,78,85],{"skillNo":50,"name":51,"nameZh":6,"description":52,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":53,"categories":54,"keywords":55,"publishedAt":19},"01M7EWYJR0J8DARY7E59Z6Y9MV","web-scrape","Turn web pages into LLM-ready markdown via the Firecrawl API (renders JS, anti-bot handling). Use when browser_open\u002Ffetch fails on JS-heavy pages, or when you need clean markdown\u002Fstructured extraction from a site. Requires FIRECRAWL_API_KEY.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fweb-scrape\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":57,"name":58,"nameZh":6,"description":59,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":60,"sourceHtmlUrl":61,"categories":62,"keywords":63,"publishedAt":19},"01M7EWYBN5P6F2AJG3FR24T9BP","design-taste-frontend","tasteskill v2, the anti-slop frontend skill. Art direction for websites, distilled from a study of 247 curated gallery sites (One Page Love, Awwwards Sites of the Day). Deals researched directions (idea, composition, type, palette, photographs, section blueprints) from a library, enforces a strict no-slop house style with a real-browser inspector, and runs a look-and-fix loop on screenshots. Use this whenever you build, design, redesign, restyle, polish or review a landing page, marketing site, portfolio, product page, one-pager, hero or any public-facing web page, in any stack (HTML\u002FCSS, React, Next.js, Vue, Svelte, Astro, Tailwind) — also when the user says a page looks generic, templated, \"AI-made\", sloppy, or asks to make it look designed, premium, award-level or less like every other site. Not for dashboards or app screens.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftaste-design\u002FLICENSE","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftaste-design\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":65,"name":66,"nameZh":6,"description":67,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":68,"categories":69,"keywords":70,"publishedAt":19},"01M7EWY8FQFNQ2GB7NZZWGSSDX","test-driven-development","Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers-tdd\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":72,"name":73,"nameZh":6,"description":74,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":75,"categories":76,"keywords":77,"publishedAt":19},"01M7EWY5SHBFRH1HDHVWM9K7TV","systematic-debugging","Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":79,"name":80,"nameZh":6,"description":81,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":82,"categories":83,"keywords":84,"publishedAt":19},"01M7EWY3NM0Z0JAKS7HDZ24K66","requesting-code-review","Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],{"skillNo":86,"name":87,"nameZh":6,"description":88,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":89,"categories":90,"keywords":91,"publishedAt":19},"01M7EWY0WRMWX4M9ZFY0WKC593","brainstorming","You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or planning anything new, in software or out of it (a talk, a business, a renovation).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTanNhatCMS\u002Fjarvis\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsuperpowers-brainstorming\u002FSKILL.md",[],[]]