MCPInstall

debug-mantra

Four-mantra debugging discipline — reproduce, trace the fail path, falsify the hypothesis, cross-reference every breadcrumb. Recite the mantra block verbatim at the start of any debugging session, then apply the four steps in order before proposing any fix. Trigger on /debug-mantra and proactively whenever debugging starts — user reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing, asks to debug/diagnose/investigate an issue, or pastes a stack trace or error log.

Installs
4.9K
Last 24h
+9
Trending rank
#9300
Security
Pass

Install

Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.

npx skills add https://github.com/thananon/9arm-skills --skill debug-mantra
  1. 01

    Install

    Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.

  2. 02

    Describe the task

    Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads debug-mantra automatically when relevant.

  3. 03

    Review the result

    The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.

Security audits

Independent scans of the skill's instructions and bundled files.

Gen Agent Trust Hub PassSAFE ·The skill provides a structured debugging methodology for an AI agent. While purely instructional and containing no malicious code, it presents a surface for indirect prompt injection by instructing the agent to ingest and process potentially untrusted external data such as error logs and stack traces.
Socket PassNo alerts
Snyk PassLOW ·Risk: LOW · No issues

SKILL.md

The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.

Debug Mantra

Four-step discipline for any debug session. Recite verbatim, then apply in order.

Recite this — verbatim, as the first thing in your first response

Mantra:

  1. First is reproducibility. Can the issue be reproduced reliably?
  2. Know the fail path. Debugger first; then source trace + knob enumeration; then in-code instrumentation.
  3. Question your hypothesis. What would disprove it?
  4. Every run is a breadcrumb. Cross-reference all of them.

Then begin work.


1. Reproduce reliably

Build a runnable repro before anything else.

  • Reliable repro → capture the exact steps, inputs, and environment as a runnable artifact: failing test, curl script, CLI invocation, replay harness.
  • Flaky repro → the bug is not yet debuggable. Raise the rate first: loop the trigger, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. 50% flake is debuggable; 1% is not.
  • No repro at all → stop. Say so explicitly. Ask the user for env access, captured artifacts (HAR, log dump, core), or permission to instrument. Do not proceed to hypothesise.

Target: a fast (1–5 s), deterministic pass/fail signal. Pin time, seed the RNG, freeze network, isolate filesystem.

2. Know the fail path

Once reproducible, find where the code breaks and what stops it from breaking. The differential narrows the search. Try in this order — escalate only when the prior tactic fails.

  1. Attach a debugger. If the env supports it, attach and step to the failure site. One breakpoint beats ten logs. Do this before turning any knobs.
  2. Source trace + knob enumeration. If no debugger (or it can't reach the bug), trace the code path end-to-end and list every knob that can influence the outcome:
    • config flags, env vars, feature toggles
    • branch conditions, input shape
    • timing, concurrency, build options Each knob is a candidate axis to flip in the differential. Flip one at a time.
  3. In-code instrumentation. If outside knobs can't move the failure, go inside: printf / log statements at the suspected fail site, dump the relevant internal state. Tag every probe with a unique prefix (e.g. [DBG-a4f2]) so cleanup is a single grep. Let the trace show where reality diverges from your model.

3. Falsify the hypothesis

When a candidate root cause surfaces, scrutinise it before testing it.

  • Does it actually explain the symptom end-to-end? Walk it through.
  • What is the simplest proof? What is the cleanest disproof?
  • Run the disproof first. If the hypothesis survives, it's real. If it dies, you saved yourself from chasing a phantom.
  • Generate 3–5 ranked hypotheses, not one. Single-hypothesis thinking anchors on the first plausible idea.

4. Every run is a breadcrumb

Maintain a running ledger of every experiment in this session. Each entry: what changed, what happened, what it ruled in or out.

  • When a new hypothesis surfaces, walk the ledger. Does it hold for every prior observation, not just the most recent?
  • If any past run contradicts it, the hypothesis is wrong or incomplete — refine or discard.
  • When in doubt, design the single experiment whose outcome makes it certain. Run that next, instead of churning on adjacent runs.
  • Update the ledger after every run. It is your memory across the session.

Operating rules

  • Recite the mantra block once per debug session, in your first response. Do not re-recite mid-session.
  • Recite verbatim. Never paraphrase, shorten, or skip lines of the recital.
  • If the user says "skip the mantra" → skip the recital but still apply the four steps silently.
  • Apply the four steps in order:
    • Do not propose a fix before #1 is satisfied (reliable repro exists).
    • Do not start testing hypotheses before #2 has narrowed the fail path.
    • Do not commit to a hypothesis before #3 has tried to disprove it.
    • Do not declare a hypothesis correct until #4 confirms it against every prior breadcrumb.
  • If you catch yourself proposing a fix without a reliable repro, stop and return to step 1.
  • The mantra is a constraint you carry through the session — not advice to deliver back to the user.

FAQ

What does the debug-mantra skill do?

Four-mantra debugging discipline — reproduce, trace the fail path, falsify the hypothesis, cross-reference every breadcrumb. Recite the mantra block verbatim at the start of any debugging session, then apply the four steps in order before proposing any fix. Trigger on /debug-mantra and proactively whenever debugging starts — user reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing, asks to debug/diagnose/investigate an issue, or pastes a stack trace or error log.

How do I install debug-mantra?

Run npx skills add https://github.com/thananon/9arm-skills --skill debug-mantra in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/debug-mantra/ (personal) or .claude/skills/debug-mantra/ (project).

Which AI agents can use debug-mantra?

Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.

Is debug-mantra safe to install?

Security partners have reviewed it: Gen Agent Trust Hub passed; Socket passed; Snyk passed. As with any skill, read the SKILL.md and bundled scripts before installing.

Who maintains debug-mantra?

It is published by thananon in thananon/9arm-skills. It has 4,875 recorded installs.

More from thananon/9arm-skills

View all →

scrutinize

thananon/9arm-skills

Outsider-perspective end-to-end review of a plan, PR, or code change. First questions intent and whether a simpler/more elegant approach would achieve the same goal, then traces the actual code path (not just the diff) to verify the change does what it claims. Output is concise, actionable, and every call carries its rationale. Trigger on /scrutinize and proactively whenever the user asks to review, audit, sanity-check, or get a second opinion on a plan, PR, diff, design doc, or proposed code change.

post-mortem

thananon/9arm-skills

Write the canonical engineering record of a fixed bug — root cause, mechanism, fix, validation, and how it slipped through. Engineer-audience, code identifiers welcome. Use after a debug session lands a fix, before closing the ticket. Trigger on /post-mortem, when the user says "write the post-mortem / postmortem / RCA / root cause analysis", "document this fix", "write up the root cause", "close out this bug with a writeup", or hands you a fixed-and-validated bug and asks for the writeup.

management-talk

thananon/9arm-skills

Rewrite engineer-to-engineer content for engineering-org leadership (VPs, directors, PMs, release managers, execs in an engineering-savvy company) and shape it for the channel it is going to — JIRA comment, Slack post, async standup line, email, or meeting talking-points. Trigger when the user asks to write/rewrite for management / exec / VP / director / PM / release manager, asks for an "executive summary / leadership update / status update", says "make this less technical / less jargony", or asks for a slack / email / standup / meeting version of work originally written engineer-to-engineer.

qwenchance

thananon/9arm-skills

Keeps a long Claude Code task on-track — breaks out of looping/circular thinking, watches the context budget, bounds internal reasoning, and triggers a clean handoff before the window fills. Use when the model is repeating steps, re-reading the same files, second-guessing in circles, stuck or spinning, or running a long multi-step task at risk of exhausting context. Also use when the user says it is "looping", "going in circles", "stuck", "repeating itself", or asks for a handoff before running out of context.

qwen-agent

thananon/9arm-skills

Delegate menial, well-scoped coding tasks to a cheap Qwen-backed subagent via the claude-9arm command instead of burning Claude tokens/quota. Use when the work is mechanical and low-risk — bulk renames, formatting, boilerplate, find-replace, grep-style search & summarization, reading/condensing logs or files, test/docstring/comment scaffolding, or running builds/linters/tests and reporting pass-fail. Also use when the user says "use qwen", "delegate this", "send it to 9arm/qwen", or "do this cheaply". Do NOT use for architecture, design, debugging judgment, security-sensitive edits, or anything needing this conversation's context.

Testing & QA2.4K installs

Popular code quality & workflow skills

View category →

grill-me

mattpocock/skills

A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.

Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.

handoff

mattpocock/skills

Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.

domain-modeling

mattpocock/skills

Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when discussing codebase terminology, writing or editing a GLOSSARY.md, or recording or editing an ADR.

codebase-design

mattpocock/skills

Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.

diagnosing-bugs

mattpocock/skills

Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.