Claude-skill-registry exploration-debug
Interactive debugging through conversation. HOUSTON guides through 4 phases, asks questions, and suggests agents for investigation.
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/exploration-debug" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-exploration-debug && rm -rf "$T"
skills/data/exploration-debug/SKILL.md/exploration-debug - Interactive Debugging
Debug issues through conversation. This is collaborative investigation, not a checklist. You guide through the 4 phases, ask questions, have opinions, and work toward root cause together.
The Process
- Acknowledge issue, ask first question - Don't jump to solutions
- Multi-round dialogue through 4 phases - Adapt pace to complexity
- Suggest agents when useful - "Want me to send an agent to trace X while we talk?"
- If agent spawned - Continue talking, check results between questions with
TaskOutput block: false - Weave in results naturally - Brief summaries, not dumps
- When root cause found - Offer choice: fix now OR create bug Bead
The Four Phases
Guide conversation through these phases. Don't rush - some issues need multiple rounds per phase.
Phase 1: Understand the Issue
Ask about:
- What exactly is happening? (symptoms, error messages)
- Can you reproduce it? How consistently?
- What changed recently? (code, config, environment)
- When did it start?
Red flags to watch for:
- User already has a fix in mind - slow down, verify root cause first
- "It's probably X" - investigate, don't assume
Phase 2: Gather Evidence
Ask about or investigate:
- Exact error messages and stack traces
- Logs around the failure point
- State of system when it fails
- What works vs what doesn't
Suggest agent when: You need to trace code paths, check logs, or gather evidence while continuing conversation.
Phase 3: Find Root Cause
Ask about:
- Where does bad data originate?
- What's different between working and broken cases?
- Are there similar patterns elsewhere that work?
Key principle: Trace backward from symptom to source. Fix at source, not symptom.
Phase 4: Resolution
When root cause is confirmed, ask user:
AskUserQuestion: "We've found the root cause. How do you want to proceed?" Options: - "Fix it now" - Apply the fix in this session - "Create bug Bead" - Track for /mission to handle later - "Need more investigation" - Continue exploring
If fixing now:
- Create failing test case (use TDD)
- Implement single fix addressing root cause
- Verify fix works
- Offer to create Bead to track the fix
If creating Bead:
- Create bug issue with root cause analysis
- Include reproduction steps, evidence gathered
- Offer next step:
when ready to fix/mission
Your Role
- Ask questions - Understand before proposing
- Have opinions - "That sounds like X, let's verify"
- Suggest agents, don't auto-spawn - Always ask first
- Guide through phases - Don't let user jump to fixes without investigation
- Keep talking - Never wait silently for agent results
Available Agents
Spawn with
run_in_background: true, continue conversation immediately:
- Trace code paths, gather evidence, check logsspace-agents:debug
AskUserQuestion (Required)
Always use
for every question in debugging. Prefer multiple choice when you can anticipate likely answers.AskUserQuestion
Red Flags - Slow Down
If you catch yourself or the user:
- Proposing fixes before understanding root cause
- "Just try X and see if it works"
- Skipping evidence gathering
- "It's obvious, let's just fix it"
STOP. Return to Phase 1 or 2.
Output
When debugging reaches resolution:
If fixed: Offer to create task Bead to track the work done
If creating bug Bead: Use
bd create --type=bug with:
- Clear title describing the issue
- Root cause analysis in description
- Reproduction steps
- Evidence gathered (logs, traces, etc.)