Systematic Debugging
Core principle: NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST.
When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue: test failures, bugs, unexpected behavior, performance problems, build failures, integration issues.
Especially when:
- •Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- •"Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- •Previous fix didn't work
- •You don't fully understand the issue
The Four Phases
Complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
MUST complete ALL before Phase 2 (copy to TodoWrite):
□ Error message copied verbatim | □ Reproduction confirmed | □ Recent changes reviewed (git diff) | □ Evidence from ALL components | □ Data flow traced (origin → error)
- •Read Error Messages - Stack traces completely, line numbers, file paths, error codes. Don't skip warnings.
- •Reproduce Consistently - Exact steps to trigger. Intermittent → gather more data.
- •Check Recent Changes -
git diff, recent commits, new dependencies, config changes. - •Multi-Component Systems - Log at each boundary: what enters, what exits, env/config state. Run once, analyze, identify failing layer.
- •Trace Data Flow - Error deep in stack? Use root-cause-tracing skill. Quick: Where does bad value originate? Trace up call stack, fix at source not symptom.
Phase 1 Summary: Error: [exact] | Reproduces: [steps] | Recent changes: [commits] | Component evidence: [each] | Data origin: [source]
Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
- •Find Working Examples - Similar working code in codebase. What works that's similar to what's broken?
- •Compare Against References - Read reference implementation COMPLETELY. Don't skim - understand fully.
- •Identify Differences - List EVERY difference (working vs broken). Don't assume "that can't matter."
- •Understand Dependencies - What components, config, environment needed? What assumptions does it make?
Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing
- •Form Single Hypothesis - "I think X is root cause because Y" - Be specific.
- •Test Minimally - SMALLEST possible change. One variable at a time.
- •Verify and Track -
H#1: [what] → [result] | H#2: [what] → [result] | H#3: [what] → [STOP if fails]If 3 hypotheses fail: STOP immediately → "3 hypotheses failed, architecture review required" → Discuss with partner before more attempts. - •When You Don't Know - Say "I don't understand X." Ask for help. Research more.
Phase 4: Implementation
Fix root cause, not symptom:
- •Create Failing Test - Simplest reproduction. Use ring:test-driven-development skill.
- •Implement Single Fix - Address root cause only. ONE change at a time. No "while I'm here" improvements.
- •Verify Fix - Test passes? No other tests broken? Issue resolved?
- •If Fix Doesn't Work - Count fixes. If < 3: Return to Phase 1. If ≥ 3: STOP → Architecture review required.
- •After Fix Verified - Test passes and issue resolved? Move to post-completion review.
- •If 3+ Fixes Failed - Pattern: each fix reveals new problem elsewhere, requires massive refactoring, creates new symptoms. STOP and discuss: Is architecture sound? Should we refactor vs. fix?
Time Limits
Debugging time boxes:
- •30 min without root cause → Escalate
- •3 failed fixes → Architecture review
- •1 hour total → Stop, document, ask for guidance
Red Flags
STOP and return to Phase 1 if thinking:
- •"Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- •"Just try changing X and see if it works"
- •"Add multiple changes, run tests"
- •"Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
- •"It's probably X, let me fix that"
- •"I don't fully understand but this might work"
- •"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
- •"Each fix reveals new problem" (architecture issue)
User signals you're wrong:
- •"Is that not happening?" → You assumed without verifying
- •"Stop guessing" → You're proposing fixes without understanding
- •"We're stuck?" → Your approach isn't working
When you see these: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
Quick Reference
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Root Cause | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence, trace data flow | Understand WHAT and WHY |
| 2. Pattern | Find working examples, compare differences, understand dependencies | Identify what's different |
| 3. Hypothesis | Form theory, test minimally, verify one at a time | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
| 4. Implementation | Create test, fix root cause, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
Circuit breakers:
- •3 hypotheses fail → STOP, architecture review
- •3 fixes fail → STOP, question fundamentals
- •30 min no root cause → Escalate
Integration with Other Skills
Required sub-skills:
- •root-cause-tracing - When error is deep in call stack (Phase 1, Step 5)
- •ring:test-driven-development - For failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
Complementary:
- •defense-in-depth - Add validation after finding root cause
- •verification-before-completion - Verify fix worked before claiming success
Required Patterns
This skill uses these universal patterns:
- •State Tracking: See
skills/shared-patterns/state-tracking.md - •Failure Recovery: See
skills/shared-patterns/failure-recovery.md - •Exit Criteria: See
skills/shared-patterns/exit-criteria.md - •TodoWrite: See
skills/shared-patterns/todowrite-integration.md
Apply ALL patterns when using this skill.