systematic-debugging — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited systematic-debugging (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Core principle: Find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRSTBEFORE attempting ANY fix:
WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):
Add diagnostic instrumentation before proposing fixes:
For EACH component boundary:
- Log what data enters/exits component
- Verify environment/config propagation
- Check state at each layer
Run once to gather evidence → analyze → identify failing componentExample:
# Layer 1: Workflow
echo "=== Secrets available: ==="
echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
# Layer 2: Build script
env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
# Layer 3: Signing
security find-identity -vSee references/root-cause-tracing.md for backward tracing technique.
Quick version: Where does bad value originate? Trace up call chain until you find the source. Fix at source.
test-driven-development skillPattern indicating architectural problem:
Action: STOP. Question fundamentals:
Discuss with human partner before more fix attempts. This is wrong architecture, not failed hypothesis.
If you catch yourself thinking:
Response: Return to Phase 1.
Reference files in references/:
Related skills:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.