Best for
- Use when a feature isn't working as specified, when investigating runtime errors, or when scoping a problem before implementing a fix.
Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills/plugins/python3-development/skills/python3-bug/SKILL.md
Debug functional issues in Python code using specs, logs, and observed behavior. Use when a feature isn't working as specified, when investigating runtime errors, or when scoping a problem before implementing a fix.
Decision brief
The model investigates functional bugs using specifications, logs, and observed behavior to scope the problem before implementing fixes.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills --skill "plugins/python3-development/skills/python3-bug"Inspect the Agent Skill "python3-bug" from https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills/blob/a00194f25fec502d3d659b7d610369614967251e/plugins/python3-development/skills/python3-bug/SKILL.md at commit a00194f25fec502d3d659b7d610369614967251e. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
Consult ../python3-development/references/python3-standards.md when applying shared architecture, typing, testing, or CLI rules; full standards, graphs, and amendment process are documented there.
Ask for these if not provided:
Establish what works and what doesn't:
Based on symptoms, form multiple hypotheses:
Review the “Phase 4: Systematic Investigation” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 91/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 64 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
<problem_description>$ARGUMENTS</problem_description>
The model investigates functional bugs using specifications, logs, and observed behavior to scope the problem before implementing fixes.
<problem_description/>
Consult ../python3-development/references/python3-standards.md when applying shared architecture, typing, testing, or CLI rules; full standards, graphs, and amendment process are documented there.
Ask for these if not provided:
SPECIFICATION
- [ ] What should the feature do? (spec, user story, acceptance criteria)
- [ ] What behavior is expected?
OBSERVED BEHAVIOR
- [ ] What actually happens?
- [ ] Error messages (exact text)
- [ ] Logs (relevant sections)
REPRODUCTION
- [ ] Steps to reproduce
- [ ] Input data that triggers the bug
- [ ] Environment (Python version, OS, dependencies)
CONTEXT
- [ ] When did it last work? (if ever)
- [ ] What changed recently?
- [ ] Is it intermittent or consistent?
## Bug Report
**Expected Behavior**:
[What should happen according to spec]
**Actual Behavior**:
[What is happening]
**Error/Logs**:
[Paste exact error messages or relevant log output]
**Reproduction Steps**:
1. [First step]
2. [Second step]
3. [Step where failure occurs]
**Environment**:
- Python: [version]
- OS: [os]
- Relevant packages: [list]
**Recent Changes**:
[What changed before this started happening]
Establish what works and what doesn't:
WORKING
- [ ] [Feature X works correctly]
- [ ] [Feature Y works correctly]
NOT WORKING
- [ ] [Feature Z fails with error]
- [ ] [Feature W produces wrong output]
UNKNOWN
- [ ] [Feature V not tested yet]
Questions to answer:
1. Is this a regression or never worked?
2. Does it fail for all inputs or specific ones?
3. Does it fail in all environments or specific ones?
4. Is the failure consistent or intermittent?
5. What's the smallest reproduction case?
# Minimal reproduction case
# Goal: Smallest code that demonstrates the bug
def test_reproduction():
"""Minimal reproduction of the bug."""
# Setup
input_data = {"key": "value"} # Specific input that triggers bug
# Action
result = buggy_function(input_data)
# Expected vs Actual
assert result == expected, f"Got {result}, expected {expected}"
Based on symptoms, form multiple hypotheses:
## Hypothesis List
H1: [Description of potential cause]
Evidence for: [what supports this]
Evidence against: [what contradicts this]
Test: [how to verify]
H2: [Description of potential cause]
Evidence for: [what supports this]
Evidence against: [what contradicts this]
Test: [how to verify]
H3: [Description of potential cause]
Evidence for: [what supports this]
Evidence against: [what contradicts this]
Test: [how to verify]
| Category | Symptoms | Investigation |
|---|---|---|
| Type Error | AttributeError, TypeError | Check types at boundary |
| State Mutation | Intermittent, order-dependent | Look for shared mutable state |
| Race Condition | Intermittent, timing-dependent | Check async/threading code |
| Edge Case | Specific inputs fail | Test boundary conditions |
| Integration | Works in isolation, fails together | Check interface contracts |
| Configuration | Environment-dependent | Compare working vs failing env |
Follow the data flow:
1. INPUT: What data enters the function?
- Log: input values, types, shapes
2. PROCESSING: What transformations occur?
- Add debug logging at each step
- Check intermediate values
3. OUTPUT: What comes out?
- Compare actual vs expected output
- Check return type and structure
4. SIDE EFFECTS: What else changes?
- Database writes
- File system changes
- External API calls
- Global state modifications
import logging
logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)
def investigate_function(data: InputType) -> OutputType:
logger.debug(f"INPUT: data={data!r}, type={type(data)}")
# Step 1
intermediate1 = process_step1(data)
logger.debug(f"STEP1: intermediate1={intermediate1!r}")
# Step 2
intermediate2 = process_step2(intermediate1)
logger.debug(f"STEP2: intermediate2={intermediate2!r}")
# Step 3
result = process_step3(intermediate2)
logger.debug(f"OUTPUT: result={result!r}, type={type(result)}")
return result
For each hypothesis:
def test_hypothesis_1():
"""Test H1: [hypothesis description]"""
# Setup to isolate this hypothesis
# ...
# Action that should reveal if H1 is correct
# ...
# Assertion that confirms or refutes H1
# If this passes, H1 is likely correct
# If this fails, H1 is refuted
## Root Cause Evidence
**Confirmed Root Cause**: [description]
**Evidence**:
1. [File:line] - [what this shows]
2. [Log entry] - [what this shows]
3. [Test result] - [what this shows]
**Why This Causes the Bug**:
[Explanation of the causal chain from root cause to symptom]
**Eliminated Hypotheses**:
- H2: Ruled out because [evidence]
- H3: Ruled out because [evidence]
Before implementing fix:
## Fix Specification
**Root Cause**: [concise description]
**Location**: [file:line range]
**Fix Approach**:
[Description of what needs to change]
**Risks**:
- [Potential side effect 1]
- [Potential side effect 2]
**Test Coverage**:
- [ ] Test for original bug (regression test)
- [ ] Test for edge cases
- [ ] Test for potential side effects
BEFORE FIX
- [ ] Root cause identified with evidence
- [ ] Minimal reproduction exists
- [ ] Test coverage plan created
DURING FIX
- [ ] Fix addresses root cause (not symptoms)
- [ ] Fix is minimal (no scope creep)
- [ ] Regression test written first
AFTER FIX
- [ ] Regression test passes
- [ ] Existing tests still pass
- [ ] Edge case tests added
- [ ] Code review if significant change
def test_bug_12345_description():
"""Regression test for bug #12345.
Bug: [brief description of the original bug]
Root cause: [what was wrong]
Fix: [what was changed]
"""
# Arrange: Setup that triggered the bug
input_data = create_problematic_input()
# Act: The operation that failed
result = fixed_function(input_data)
# Assert: Verify correct behavior
assert result == expected_output
# Also verify the specific fix worked
assert result.specific_field == expected_value
## Bug Investigation Report
**Issue**: [Brief description]
**Status**: [Investigating | Root Cause Found | Fixed | Cannot Reproduce]
### Problem Statement
**Expected**: [spec behavior]
**Actual**: [observed behavior]
**Impact**: [who/what is affected]
### Investigation Timeline
1. [timestamp] - [action taken] - [result]
2. [timestamp] - [action taken] - [result]
3. [timestamp] - [action taken] - [result]
### Hypotheses
| # | Hypothesis | Status | Evidence |
|---|------------|--------|----------|
| H1 | [description] | Confirmed/Refuted | [evidence] |
| H2 | [description] | Confirmed/Refuted | [evidence] |
### Root Cause
**Location**: [file:line]
**Description**: [what's wrong and why]
**Evidence**: [how we know this is the cause]
### Fix
**Approach**: [what will be changed]
**Files Modified**: [list]
**Tests Added**: [list]
### Verification
- [ ] Bug no longer reproduces
- [ ] Regression test passes
- [ ] Existing tests pass
- [ ] Edge cases covered
# Bug: AttributeError: 'NoneType' has no attribute 'x'
# Cause: Function returns None unexpectedly
# Investigation
result = get_something()
print(f"result is None: {result is None}") # Check this first
# Fix: Add proper None handling
if (result := get_something()) is None:
raise ValueError("Expected result but got None")
return result.x
# Bug: List accumulates across calls
def buggy(items=[]): # WRONG: mutable default
items.append(1)
return items
# Fix
def fixed(items: list | None = None) -> list:
if items is None:
items = []
items.append(1)
return items
# Bug: Coroutine never executed
async def fetch_data():
return await api_call()
# WRONG: Missing await
result = fetch_data() # Returns coroutine, not result
# Fix
result = await fetch_data()
# Bug: ImportError or circular import
# Investigation: Check import order and dependencies
# Fix: Use local imports for circular dependencies
def function_that_needs_other_module():
from .other_module import OtherClass # Local import
return OtherClass()
Frequently asked questions
The model investigates functional bugs using specifications, logs, and observed behavior to scope the problem before implementing fixes.
The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills --skill "plugins/python3-development/skills/python3-bug". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
Alternatives
rampstackco/claude-skills
Running experiments out of the data warehouse instead of via dedicated experiment platforms. SQL-based assignment, exposure logging discipline, metric definitions in dbt models, statistical analysis in SQL or Python, variance reduction with CUPED, sequential testing, and the operational tradeoffs vs platforms like Statsig and Optimizely. Triggers on warehouse-native experimentation, run experiments in BigQuery, run experiments in Snowflake, dbt experiments, SQL t-test, CUPED variance reduction,
Aperivue/medsci-skills
Interactive sample size calculator for medical research. Decision-tree guided test selection, reproducible R/Python code, effect size interpretation, and IRB-ready justification text. Supports diagnostic accuracy, agreement, proportions, continuous outcomes, survival, ANOVA, logistic regression, and non-inferiority/equivalence designs.
PramodDutta/qaskills
Generate optimized test combinations using pairwise (all-pairs) testing algorithms to achieve maximum coverage with minimum test cases across multiple input parameters
trailofbits/skills
Mutation-driven test vector generation. Finds implementations of a cryptographic algorithm or protocol, runs mutation testing to identify escaped mutants, then generates new test vectors that deliberately exercise the uncovered code paths. Compares before/after mutation kill rates to prove vector effectiveness. Use when generating cryptographic test vectors, measuring Wycheproof coverage gaps, finding escaped mutants via mutation testing, creating cross-implementation test suites, or improving t