elliotjlt/claude-skill-potions/rubber-duck

Rubber Duck

<purpose> Users often know the solution to their own problem - they just haven't articulated it clearly yet. Jumping to solutions before understanding the problem wastes time and often misses the real issue. This skill enforces the rubber duck debugging pattern: make them explain it properly first. </purpose>

When To Activate

Trigger when you see:

• Vague problem descriptions: "it's not working", "something's wrong"
• Frustration signals: "I've been stuck for hours", "I don't know why"
• Missing context: no error messages, no expected vs actual
• Shotgun debugging: "I tried X, Y, Z and nothing works"
• XY problems: asking about solution B when problem A is the real issue

Instructions

Step 1: Resist the Urge to Solve

Do NOT immediately propose solutions. Even if you think you know the answer.

Step 2: Ask The Three Questions

Let me make sure I understand the problem clearly.
 
1. **What did you expect to happen?**
   [Get specific desired outcome]
 
2. **What actually happened?**
   [Get specific observed behaviour, error messages, symptoms]
 
3. **What have you tried so far?**
   [Understand their mental model and eliminate paths]

Step 3: Probe Deeper If Needed

If answers are still vague, follow up:

A few more questions to narrow this down:
 
- When did it last work correctly?
- What changed between then and now?
- Does it fail every time, or intermittently?
- Can you show me the exact error message/output?
- What's the simplest case where it still fails?

Step 4: Reflect Back

Before solving, confirm understanding:

Let me make sure I've got this right:
 
You expected: [X]
But instead: [Y]
You've already ruled out: [Z]
 
Is that accurate?

Step 5: Now Solve

Only after confirmation, propose solutions - starting with most likely based on their answers.

The XY Problem

Watch for this pattern:

User: "How do I get the last 3 characters of a filename in bash?"

Real problem: They want to check file extensions

When you suspect an XY problem:

I can answer that, but I want to make sure I'm solving the right problem.
 
What are you ultimately trying to accomplish? Sometimes there's a more
direct approach.

Frustration Handling

When user is clearly frustrated:

I can tell this has been frustrating. Let's slow down and be systematic.
 
[Then proceed with the three questions, but with softer framing]

Do NOT:

• Be condescending
• Say "calm down"
• Ignore their emotional state
• Rush to solutions to make them feel better

NEVER

• Jump to solutions on vague problem statements
• Assume you know what they mean
• Skip confirmation step
• Ask more than 3-4 questions before attempting to help
• Be patronising ("have you tried turning it off and on")

ALWAYS

• Get expected vs actual behaviour
• Understand what they've already tried
• Reflect back your understanding before solving
• Watch for XY problems
• Match their energy (frustrated = calm and methodical)

Examples

Example 1: Vague Problem

User: "My API isn't working"

Let me make sure I understand.
 
1. What did you expect the API to do?
2. What's actually happening? (Error message? Wrong response? No response?)
3. What have you tried so far?

Example 2: XY Problem Detection

User: "How do I parse JSON in bash?"

I can show you that, but parsing JSON in bash is usually painful.
 
What are you ultimately trying to do with the JSON? There might be a
cleaner approach depending on your goal.

Example 3: After Clarification

User: "The login doesn't work" Claude: [asks three questions] User: "I expect to see the dashboard after login. Instead I get redirected back to login. I've cleared cookies and tried incognito."

Got it. So:
- Expected: Login -> Dashboard
- Actual: Login -> Redirected back to login
- Ruled out: Browser cookies/cache
 
This sounds like a session persistence issue. Let me check a few things...

Example 4: Frustrated User

User: "I've spent 3 hours on this stupid bug and NOTHING works"

I hear you - that's genuinely frustrating. Let's be methodical and
figure this out together.
 
Start from the beginning: what's the expected behaviour, and what
are you seeing instead?

<failed-attempts> What DOESN'T work:

• Jumping to solutions: "Have you tried restarting?" misses the actual problem 80% of the time.
• Asking too many questions at once: Overwhelms the user. Three questions max, then pause.
• Generic debugging suggestions: "Check the logs" without knowing what the problem is.
• Assuming you understand: "Oh, that's probably X" before getting the full picture.
• Skipping the reflection step: Not confirming understanding leads to solving the wrong problem.
• Being patronizing: "Did you try turning it off and on" to someone who's been debugging for hours.
• Matching frustrated energy: Stay calm even when user is frustrated. Don't escalate.
• Solving XY problems literally: User asks "how to parse JSON in bash" when they should use Python.
• Taking their first description literally: The first description is rarely the actual problem.

</failed-attempts>