SkillAtlasSkill 详情

socratic-debugging

Essays and writing behind this toolkit live at vexjoy.com.

审核状态:已审核Quality 80Security 80

复制安装命令

用 Codex 或 Claude 安装复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它先审查 Skill 页面再帮你安装。

复制前请先查看来源、License 和安全提示。

项目 README

来源文件:README.md

抓取于 2026年8月31日

VexJoy Agent

VexJoy Agent

Essays and writing behind this toolkit live at vexjoy.com.

AI agents skip steps.

"Looks correct" replaces running tests. "Trivial change" replaces verification. The agent confidently ships broken code because nothing structurally prevented it from skipping the work.

Harnesses have a second problem: given only a skill list, they do not route eagerly enough, or correctly enough. Good skills sit unused. So this toolkit connects the skills, agents, and workflows we want directly into the harness, automatically. You don't have to understand what is here. Say what you want in plain English and you get all the value we have put into it: the right specialist with the right methodology, behind gates that demand exit codes, not assertions.

44 domain agents, 122 workflow skills, 78 hooks, 136 scripts. Agents carry knowledge, skills enforce methodology, hooks block incomplete work, scripts handle determinism.

Works across Claude Code (/do), Codex ($do), Factory (/do), Reasonix (/do).

What It Looks Like

$ claude

> /do debug this Go test

  Routing: go-engineer + systematic-debugging
  Phase 1/4: Reproduce: running test, capturing failure...
  Phase 2/4: Hypothesize: 3 candidates from stack trace...
  Phase 3/4: Verify: isolated root cause in connection pool timeout
  Phase 4/4: Fix: patch applied, test passing, PR opened

  ✓ Delivered: PR #847, fix connection pool timeout in health check

The router reads intent, picks a Go agent paired with a debugging skill, and runs the full lifecycle. You typed one sentence. The system did the rest.

The Pipeline

  ROUTE        PLAN         EXECUTE      VERIFY       DELIVER      RECORD
 ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐
 │ /do  │───▶│ Task │───▶│Agent │───▶│Tests │───▶│  PR  │───▶│Route │
 │Router│    │ Plan │    │+Skill│    │Gates │    │Branch│    │Result│
 └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘

Anti-Rationalization

This is the single thing that separates it from "agent with a system prompt."

Agent SaysWhat Happens
"Code looks correct, skip tests"Exit gate requires test output. Blocked.
"Trivial change, no verification"Hook blocks completion without evidence.
"Similar to before"Skill demands case-specific proof.
"User is in a hurry"Protocol overrides time pressure.
"I'm confident"Gate demands exit code, not assertion.

Hooks fire automatically. Gates block completion. Skills encode counter-arguments at every skip-worthy step. The agent verifies or it doesn't finish.

For what I do, the difference is enormous. If you're doing simple single-file edits, maybe less so.

Knowledge Work Is First-Class

The same routing serves knowledge work. The content engine researches, drafts in a calibrated voice, validates against 397 AI patterns, and repurposes finished pieces for each platform. /html turns any request into a single self-contained HTML file: report, slide deck, prototype, data viz, diagram. Non-engineers who try the toolkit consistently name the HTML artifacts as the thing they love. No code, no setup beyond the installer.

It Proves Its Own Changes

Changes to the toolkit itself ship with evidence. New skills get blind A/B tests against a no-skill baseline before merge. Routing and writing-standard decisions carry measured verdicts; PHILOSOPHY.md cites the numbers. Experiments that lost go into the negative-results registry, what-didnt-work.md; the registry now covers routing reversals, unvalidated A/B citations, and disabled lint rules alongside the original program refutations.

The automated nightly evolution loop (/evolve, writes to evolution-reports/) ran regularly through mid-May 2026. It is currently dormant; recent evidence has come from manual PRs instead.

Installation

git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git ~/vexjoy-agent
cd ~/vexjoy-agent
./install.sh

Links into ~/.claude/ and mirrors into ~/.codex/, ~/.factory/, ~/.reasonix/ — each mirror only when that runtime is detected (its command on PATH or its home dir already exists). The installer asks symlink (live updates via git pull) or copy (stable snapshot).

Want only part of the toolkit? Run ./install.sh --configure to pick which skills, agents, and hooks install, or copy .local.example/profile.yaml to .local/profile.yaml and edit. No profile file = full install, unchanged behavior. Credit: @thomasvan. Details: .local.example/README.md.

CLIEntry Point
Claude Code/do
Codex$do
Factory/do
Reasonix/do

Full setup: docs/start-here.md

Codex CLI Parity

Mirrors agents, skills, and supported hooks into ~/.codex/. The original six-hook allowlist was correct for Codex v0.114, when tool hooks only intercepted Bash. Current support requires Codex v0.144.1+ and classifies the 74 Claude hook registrations as 26 native, 35 adapter-backed, and 13 unsupported (61 supported). These are registration counts, not unique hook files. The installer also preserves explicit per-subagent model routing for GPT-5.6 Sol by setting the MultiAgent V2 compatibility keys documented in openai/codex#31814.

Codex now exposes apply_patch to tool hooks. VexJoy's adapter converts each patch operation into the Write/Edit payload expected by existing guards, but it cannot intercept writes performed through unified_exec, unmatched MCP tools, WebSearch, or other unsupported tool paths. PreCompact and Stop adapters also receive less telemetry than Claude Code: Codex does not provide Claude's conversation_history or session_data. This is expanded compatibility, not full Claude parity.

After install or any hook-definition change, run /hooks in Codex and review the new definitions before trusting them. Codex hash-trusts hook commands and skips changed, unreviewed definitions.

Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI Support (removed)

Gemini CLI support removed (deprecated upstream, transitioned to Antigravity CLI); Antigravity support pending CLI maturity. Per Google's transition announcement, Gemini CLI stops serving requests on 2026-06-18 for Google AI Pro / Ultra and free Gemini Code Assist for individuals. Gemini API integrations (image-gen backends, sprite pipeline, GEMINI_API_KEY) are unaffected and stay in the toolkit.

If a prior install mirrored into ~/.gemini/, remove the stale mirrors with:

rm -rf ~/.gemini/skills ~/.gemini/agents ~/.gemini/hooks ~/.gemini/scripts ~/.gemini/antigravity/plugins/vexjoy-agent
Factory CLI Support

Mirrors agents (as "droids"), skills, and all hooks into ~/.factory/. Hook config merges into ~/.factory/settings.json with paths rewritten.

Reasonix Support

Mirrors skills, scripts, and the allowlisted hooks (scripts/reasonix-hooks-allowlist.txt) into ~/.reasonix/ (no agent or custom-command surface, so neither is installed; the /do router rides in as a skill). Reasonix fires only 4 events (PreToolUse, PostToolUse, UserPromptSubmit, Stop), so only hooks for those events are allowlisted. Hook config is written to the hooks key of ~/.reasonix/settings.json in Reasonix's native flat shape (one entry per hook, match regex over the tool name); the generator builds absolute python3 commands, so no path rewrite is applied. MCP/model/permissions in ~/.reasonix/config.json are user-owned and left untouched.

Token-saving mode

The toolkit supplies its own routing, domain knowledge, methodology, and enforcement. The default system prompt duplicates most of that.

claude --system-prompt "."

Strips built-in tool-use instructions. The toolkit's agents, skills, hooks, and CLAUDE.md provide equivalent coverage.

Four Layers

LayerCountDoes
Agents44Domain knowledge: idiom tables, failure mode catalogs, error-to-fix mappings
Skills122Phased methodology with gates. Can't skip steps. Each phase has exit criteria requiring evidence.
Hooks78Fire on lifecycle events. Block incomplete work. Zero LLM cost.
Scripts136Determinism: test runners, linters, validators. No LLM judgment.

Full skill catalog: docs/skills.md.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  SKILL.md                                       │
│  ┌─ Frontmatter ─────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ triggers, pairs_with, success-criteria     │  │
│  └────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│  Reference Loading Table (conditional imports)   │
│  Phased Instructions (numbered, with gates)      │
│  Verification (evidence requirements)            │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Built with the Toolkit

A game built entirely by Claude Code using these agents, skills, and pipelines:

Choose Your Path

I just want to use it Install, learn /do, done.

I do knowledge work Writing, research, data analysis, moderation, HTML artifacts. No code.

I'm a developer Architecture, extension points, adding agents and skills.

I'm an AI power user Routing tables, pipelines, hooks, telemetry DB.

I'm an AI agent Machine-dense inventory. Tables, paths, schemas.

I'm on LinkedIn 🚀 Thought leadership. Agree? 👇

Philosophy

  • Zero-expertise operation. Say what you want. The system classifies, dispatches, enforces, delivers.
  • LLMs orchestrate, programs execute. Deterministic work belongs to scripts. LLM judgment handles design decisions, diagnosis, review.
  • Density. Every word carries instruction, rule, or decision. Cut everything else.
  • Breadth over depth. Right context ensures correctness. Unfocused context adds cost.
  • Structural enforcement. Exit codes enforce what instructions can't. Quality gates are automated, not advisory.
  • Everything pipelines. Complex work decomposes into phases. Phases have gates. Gates prevent cascading failures.

Full design philosophy: PHILOSOPHY.md

Maintenance

One report-only script surfaces upkeep work; it prints a digest and never edits, deletes, or blocks.

  • python3 scripts/stale-skill-scan.py --top 20 ranks stale skills and agents as pruning candidates. Run it quarterly; see docs/deprecation-template.md.

Scheduled work follows the same boundary as everything else: judgment uses agents; repeatable plumbing uses scripts.

NeedUse
Run a deterministic command on a schedulescripts/agent-scheduler.py with runner: "command"
Run an agent judgment on a schedule, webhook, or file changescripts/agent-scheduler.py with the default runner: "claude"
Install or remove a user crontab entry safelyscripts/crontab-manager.py
Audit shell cron reliabilitycron-automation
Keep one interactive objective moving until criteria verifyobjective-loop

Contributing

See CONTRIBUTING.md.

License

MIT. See LICENSE.

测试与质量

中风险

  • 来源需自行核对维护者身份。
  • 包含脚本或命令调用,安装前请复核。
  • 未检测到明显外部权限要求。
  • 未检测到高风险命令。
  • 扫描发现:1 条。

Codex — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/process/socratic-debugging" 文件夹复制到 Codex 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Codex — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Codex 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/process/socratic-debugging" 文件夹复制到 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/process/socratic-debugging" 文件夹复制到 Cursor 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Cursor 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/process/socratic-debugging" 文件夹复制到 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/process/socratic-debugging" 文件夹复制到 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。
查看 SKILL.md 原文
name: socratic-debugging
description: "Question-only debugging: guide users to find root causes themselves."
user-invocable: false
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Grep
  - Glob
  - Bash
routing:
  triggers:
    - "guide debugging"
    - "question-based"
    - "teach debugging"
    - "ask me questions"
    - "help me think through"
    - "guide me"
    - "coaching mode"
    - "teach me to find it"
  category: process
  pairs_with:
    - forensics
    - systematic-code-review

Socratic Debugging Skill

Overview

This skill teaches debugging through structured inquiry rather than providing answers, implementing the Socratic Method pattern. You ask questions that lead the user to discover root causes themselves, building lasting investigative skills rather than offering direct solutions.


Instructions

Core Constraints

Guide the user to discover the answer themselves. The user must arrive at the root cause themselves -- giving answers defeats the learning objective. Always read relevant code first using Read/Grep/Glob before formulating questions. Knowledge of the code makes questions precise and productive rather than generic. Follow the 9-phase progression without skipping: jumping to hypothesis questions without establishing symptoms and state leads to guesswork instead of systematic discovery.

Default Workflow Behaviors

Begin with symptoms regardless of how specific the user's description is. Even detailed reports contain unstated assumptions. Ask one question at a time and wait for the response. Multiple questions overwhelm and dilute focus. Mirror the user's terminology (variable names, function names, domain terms) in your questions to reduce friction and show engagement. When the user discovers something, acknowledge it before asking the next question -- silent progression feels like interrogation. After 12 questions without progress toward root cause, trigger escalation to systematic-debugging as a clean handoff.

Question Progression: 9 Phases

Follow these phases in order. Each phase builds evidence for the next.

PhasePurposeExample Questions
1. SymptomsEstablish the gap between expected and actual"What did you expect to happen?" / "What actually happened instead?"
2. ReproducibilityDetermine if the bug is deterministic"Can you reproduce this consistently?" / "What conditions trigger it?"
3. Prior AttemptsFocus on fresh approaches"What have you already tried?" / "What happened when you tried that?"
4. Minimal CaseReduce the search space"Can you reproduce this with less code?" / "What is the smallest failing input?"
5. Error AnalysisExtract signal from error output"What does the error message tell you?" / "Which part of the message is most informative?"
6. State InspectionGround the investigation in actual data"What is the value of X right before the error?" / "What state do you see at that point?"
7. Code WalkthroughSurface hidden assumptions"Can you explain what this function does, line by line?" / "What happens at this branch?"
8. Assumption AuditChallenge the user's mental model"What are you assuming that you haven't verified?" / "Could that value ever be null here?"
9. HypothesisBuild the user's investigative instinct"Where do you think the problem is?" / "Why there specifically?"

Execution Flow

  1. User describes the bug. Read the relevant code silently using Read/Grep/Glob.
  2. Ask Phase 1 question. Your first response must be exactly one question with no other text — no preamble, no diagnosis, no code references or examples, no mention of files you read, no announcement of tools used or planned. Even if the bug seems obvious from the code, start with symptoms. Make the question pointed if the answer is likely simple.
  3. Listen, acknowledge, ask next question. Format: brief acknowledgment of what they said, then one question advancing toward root cause.
  4. Track question count. After 12 questions with no progress toward root cause, trigger escalation offer.
  5. When user identifies root cause, confirm their finding and ask what fix they would apply. Let the user propose the fix.

Hints vs. Leading Questions

Questions may contain subtle directional hints. The goal is discovery, not suffering. A good hint directs attention without revealing the answer: asking what a specific value is right before a failure. A bad hint is a leading question that contains the answer: asking whether a specific value could be null. The line: open-ended questions that narrow focus are hints. Leading questions that contain the answer are violations.

Escalation Protocol

After 12 questions without progress, offer cleanly:

"We have been exploring this for a while. Would you like to switch to direct debugging mode? I can investigate and solve this systematically instead of through questions."

If the user accepts, use this action: Call the Skill tool with workflow. Run the systematic-debugging pipeline with a summary of what has been established:

  • Symptoms identified
  • What has been tried
  • Current hypothesis (if any)
  • Relevant files/lines discovered

Error Handling

User Says "Just Tell Me the Answer"

Cause: User wants direct help, not guided discovery Solution: Offer to switch modes cleanly. Say: "Would you like to switch to direct debugging mode? I can solve this for you instead." If they accept, use this action: Call the Skill tool with workflow. Run the systematic-debugging pipeline.

User Is Frustrated

Cause: Too many questions without visible progress, or questions feel generic Solution: Acknowledge the frustration. Offer escalation. If they want to continue, read more code and ask sharper, more targeted questions. Generic questions indicate you haven't read the code deeply enough.

Bug Is Trivially Obvious From Code

Cause: A typo, missing import, or simple syntax error visible in the source Solution: Still ask Phase 1, but make the question very pointed -- narrow enough that the user will see the answer immediately. Follow phase progression; pointed questions stay within the Socratic framework.


References

This skill teaches debugging through structured inquiry within these constraints: Maintain the Socratic method by guiding toward answers; always read code before questioning (generic questions signal incomplete code understanding); follow phase progression to build evidence rather than guessing; escalate cleanly at 12 questions without progress rather than continuing to frustrate the user; use the user's terminology to maintain engagement; acknowledge discoveries to keep the dialogue feeling collaborative rather than like interrogation.

发现问题?提交给管理员复核

评分:

评论 (0)

暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!