
systematic-debugging
by 5dlabs
Cognitive Task Orchestrator - GitOps on Bare Metal or Cloud for AI Agents
SKILL.md
name: systematic-debugging description: Four-phase debugging process - root cause investigation, pattern analysis, hypothesis testing, implementation.
Systematic Debugging
Overview
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
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
Use this 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
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
-
Read Error Messages Carefully
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
-
Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
-
Check Recent Changes
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
-
Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
For EACH component boundary: - Log what data enters component - Log what data exits component - Verify environment/config propagation - Check state at each layer Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component -
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
-
Find Working Examples
- Locate similar working code in same codebase
- What works that's similar to what's broken?
-
Compare Against References
- If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Don't skim - read every line
-
Identify Differences
- What's different between working and broken?
- List every difference, however small
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
-
Form Single Hypothesis
- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Write it down
- Be specific, not vague
-
Test Minimally
- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
- One variable at a time
- Don't fix multiple things at once
-
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
-
Create Failing Test Case
- Simplest possible reproduction
- Automated test if possible
- MUST have before fixing
-
Implement Single Fix
- Address the root cause identified
- ONE change at a time
- No "while I'm here" improvements
-
Verify Fix
- Test passes now?
- No other tests broken?
- Issue actually resolved?
-
If Fix Doesn't Work
- STOP
- Count: How many fixes have you tried?
- If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze
- If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture
-
If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture Pattern indicating architectural problem:
- Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling
- Fixes require "massive refactoring"
- Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes
Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
If you catch yourself 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"
- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
- "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
Quick Reference
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Root Cause | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
| 2. Pattern | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
| 3. Hypothesis | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
| 4. Implementation | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
Real-World Impact
From debugging sessions:
- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common
Attribution
Based on obra/superpowers systematic-debugging skill.
Score
Total Score
Based on repository quality metrics
SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている
ライセンスが設定されている
100文字以上の説明がある
GitHub Stars 100以上
1ヶ月以内に更新
10回以上フォークされている
オープンIssueが50未満
プログラミング言語が設定されている
1つ以上のタグが設定されている
Reviews
Reviews coming soon


