Rigor Debug / Rigor Audit skill for deep learning research work.
Use when the user pastes a traceback, terminal error, CUDA OOM, checkpoint load failure, shape mismatch, NaN loss symptom, or training failure and wants conservative diagnosis before any patching, with debug fixes clearly separated from research contributions.
Do not use for broad refactoring, speculative adaptation, automatic exploratory patching, or general repository familiarization.
Similar popular skills
Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.
The skill is a safe and conservative debugging tool designed for deep learning research. it focuses on error diagnosis and root-cause analysis without performing automatic code modifications or network operations. it strictly enforces human-in-the-loop approval for any proposed fixes.
snykLOW
Analyzed May 29, 2026
No issues detected.
socketScore 0.9000 · 0 alerts
Analyzed May 29, 2026
license1
maintenance1
quality0.9
supply chain1
vulnerability1
0 alerts
Also in this package
Other skills from lllllllama/rigorpilot-skills · top by installs.
Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.
Claude CodeNot declared
CursorNot declared
CodexNot declared
GitHub CopilotNot declared
WindsurfNot declared
Gemini CLINot declared
ClineNot declared
OpenCodeNot declared
Repository health
Stars484
LicenseLICENSE
Default branchmain
Open issues0
Status
Active
Package contents
Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.
skill mdSKILL.md2,086 B
docsSUMMARY.md472 B
History
First seen on skills.sh
First recorded snapshot · 310,600 installs
SKILL.md
safe-debug
Use this as the Rigor Debug / Rigor Audit skill. The installed slug remains safe-debug for compatibility.
Use the shared operating principles in ../ai-research-reproduction/references/agent-operating-principles.md; this skill should guide conservative diagnosis without blocking the model from finding the local root cause.
When to apply
The user provides a traceback, terminal error, or concrete training or inference failure symptom.
The user wants diagnosis, root-cause narrowing, and minimal patch suggestions before code is changed.
The user wants a safe debug flow with explicit human approval before mutation.
When not to apply
When the user wants a broad repository walkthrough without an active failure.
When the task is speculative experimentation or code adaptation.
When the user is asking for a large refactor or readability rewrite.
Clear boundaries
Diagnose first.
Do not modify repository code by default.
If a patch is needed, propose the smallest fix and require explicit approval first.
Escalate savepoint or branch creation before medium-risk or high-risk changes.
A debug fix is not automatically a research contribution; if it changes
experiment meaning or comparability, say so explicitly.
Output expectations
debug_outputs/DIAGNOSIS.md
debugoutputs/PATCHPLAN.md
debug_outputs/status.json
Notes
Use references/debug-policy.md, ../ai-research-reproduction/references/research-rigor-principles.md, and the shared ../ai-research-reproduction/references/research-pitfall-checklist.md.