AgentSkillsCN

debugging

在遇到任何Bug、测试失败或意外行为时,在提出修复方案之前,应先进行根本原因分析。在尝试修复之前,务必查明问题的根源;随意的修复不仅浪费时间,还可能引发新的Bug。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: debugging
description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes. Requires root cause investigation before any fix attempts. Random fixes waste time and create new bugs.

Systematic Debugging

Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.

Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.


The Iron Law

code
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST

If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.


When to Use

Any technical issue:

  • Test failures
  • Bugs in production
  • Unexpected behavior
  • Performance problems
  • Build failures
  • Integration issues

Especially when:

  • Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
  • "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
  • You've already tried multiple fixes
  • Previous fix didn't work

The Four Phases

Complete each phase before proceeding to the next.

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

BEFORE attempting ANY fix:

  1. Read Error Messages Carefully

    • Don't skip past errors or warnings
    • Read stack traces completely (Haskell traces can be sparse - look for call context)
    • Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
  2. Reproduce Consistently

    • Can you trigger it reliably?
    • What are the exact steps?
    • If not reproducible -> gather more data, don't guess
  3. Check Recent Changes

    • Git diff, recent commits
    • New dependencies, config changes
    • Environmental differences
  4. Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems

    code
    For EACH component boundary:
      - Log what data enters
      - Log what data exits
      - Verify environment/config propagation
    
    Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
    THEN investigate that specific component
    
  5. Trace Data Flow

    • Where does bad value originate?
    • What called this with bad value?
    • Keep tracing up until you find the source
    • Fix at source, not at symptom

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

  1. Find Working Examples

    • Locate similar working code in same codebase
    • What works that's similar to what's broken?
  2. Compare Against References

    • Read reference implementation COMPLETELY
    • Don't skim - read every line
  3. Identify Differences

    • What's different between working and broken?
    • List every difference, however small

Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing

  1. Form Single Hypothesis

    • "I think X is the root cause because Y"
    • Be specific, not vague
  2. Test Minimally

    • Make the SMALLEST possible change
    • One variable at a time
    • Don't fix multiple things at once
  3. Verify Before Continuing

    • Did it work? Yes -> Phase 4
    • Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
    • DON'T add more fixes on top

Phase 4: Implementation

  1. Create Failing Test Case

    • Simplest possible reproduction
    • MUST have before fixing
  2. Implement Single Fix

    • Address the root cause
    • ONE change at a time
    • No "while I'm here" improvements
  3. Verify Fix

    • Test passes now?
    • No other tests broken?
  4. If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture

    Pattern indicating architectural problem:

    • Each fix reveals new problem in different place
    • Fixes require massive refactoring
    • Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere

    STOP and question fundamentals before attempting more fixes


Haskell-Specific Debugging

One-Shot Evaluation for Inspection

bash
# Evaluate expressions
ghci -e "print (1 + 2)"
ghci -e "import Data.List; print (sort [3,1,2])"

# Check types in project context
cabal repl -e ":t functionName"
cabal repl -e ":i TypeName"

Debug.Trace for Printf Debugging

haskell
import Debug.Trace

-- Trace a value
processData x = trace ("processing: " ++ show x) $ actualLogic x

-- Trace with value inspection
debugValue x = traceShowId x  -- prints and returns x

-- Conditional tracing
debugIf condition msg x
  | condition = trace msg x
  | otherwise = x

Remove Debug.Trace before committing!

GHCi Debugging Commands

bash
# One-shot commands (non-interactive)
cabal repl -e ":t expression"     # Show type
cabal repl -e ":i TypeName"       # Show info about type/class
cabal repl -e ":kind TypeName"    # Show kind of type

Stack Traces

For runtime exceptions, compile with profiling:

bash
# Enable stack traces
cabal configure --enable-profiling
cabal build
./program +RTS -xc

Lazy Evaluation Gotchas

haskell
-- Lazy values may not be evaluated when you expect
-- Use :sprint in GHCi (interactive) to see unevaluated thunks
-- Or use Debug.Trace to see evaluation order

-- Force evaluation for debugging
import Control.DeepSeq (force)
debugForce x = force x `seq` x

Common Haskell Errors

ErrorLikely Cause
Non-exhaustive patternsMissing case in pattern match
No instance for (Show X)Need to derive or define Show
Couldn't match typeType mismatch - read both types carefully
Ambiguous type variableNeed type annotation
Not in scopeTypo or missing import
Infinite typeRecursive type without base case
<<loop>>Infinite recursion at runtime

Red Flags - STOP and Return to Phase 1

If you catch yourself thinking:

  • "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
  • "Just try changing X and see if it works"
  • "It's probably X, let me fix that"
  • "I don't fully understand but this might work"
  • "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
  • Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
  • "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"Issue is simple"Simple issues have root causes too
"Emergency, no time"Systematic is FASTER than thrashing
"Just try this first"First fix sets the pattern
"Multiple fixes saves time"Can't isolate what worked
"I see the problem"Seeing symptoms != understanding root cause
"One more attempt" (after 2+)3+ failures = architectural problem

Quick Reference

PhaseKey ActivitiesSuccess Criteria
1. Root CauseRead errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidenceUnderstand WHAT and WHY
2. PatternFind working examples, compareIdentify differences
3. HypothesisForm theory, test minimallyConfirmed or new hypothesis
4. ImplementationCreate test, fix, verifyBug resolved, tests pass

Real-World Impact

ApproachTime to FixFirst-Time Fix RateNew Bugs
Systematic15-30 min95%Near zero
Random fixes2-3 hours40%Common