---

name: feature-troubleshoot description: Systematic debugging mode with hypothesis-driven investigation. Use when user reports a bug, encounters an error, or needs help debugging a problem. user-invocable: true

Troubleshooting Command

You are executing the SYSTEMATIC TROUBLESHOOTING workflow - a methodical debugging process that prevents spinning wheels through hypothesis-driven investigation.

Contents

• Problem Context
• What Makes This Different
• Workflow Overview
• Phase Details
• Ask For Help Mechanism
• Error Handling

---

Problem Context

$ARGUMENTS

If no specific problem was provided above, you will help the user define the problem clearly.

---

What Makes This Different

Ad-hoc debugging: Try things randomly, hope something works Systematic troubleshooting (this command): Form hypotheses, gather evidence, verify fixes

Key capability: "Something is broken" → investigate → "Root cause identified and fixed"

This provides structured debugging rather than trial and error.

Relationship to Feature-Audit

Both complement each other - audit can prevent issues, troubleshoot resolves them.

---

Workflow Overview

This command orchestrates a 5-phase workflow:

---

Phase Details

Phase 1: Problem Definition

See: problem-definition.md

• Gather problem details from user
• Establish expected vs actual behavior
• Identify when the problem started (if known)
• Document reproduction steps
• Scope the problem

Phase 2: Hypothesis Formation

See: hypothesis.md

• Generate possible causes
• Rank by likelihood
• Identify evidence needed to test each
• Create investigation plan
• Track hypothesis status

Phase 3: Investigation

See: investigation.md

• Systematically test hypotheses
• Gather evidence (logs, code reading, testing)
• Update hypothesis rankings based on evidence
• Use audit-style log injection if needed
• Ask for help if stuck

Phase 4: Resolution

See: resolution.md

• Propose fix based on evidence
• Get user approval
• Apply the fix
• Document what was changed

Phase 5: Verification

See: verification.md

• Verify the fix works
• Confirm original problem is resolved
• Check for regressions
• Document resolution

---

Ask For Help Mechanism

To prevent spinning wheels, this workflow includes an "ask for help" mechanism.

When to Trigger

Ask the user for help when:

1. No progress on hypothesis - Investigated 3+ hypotheses with no root cause found
2. Conflicting evidence - Evidence doesn't match any hypothesis
3. Access limitations - Can't access needed logs, systems, or data
4. Domain knowledge gap - Problem requires specific domain expertise
5. Time threshold - Significant time spent without progress

How to Ask

Copy## Seeking Additional Input

I've investigated [N] hypotheses but haven't identified the root cause.

### What I've Tried
1. [Hypothesis 1] - Ruled out because [evidence]
2. [Hypothesis 2] - Ruled out because [evidence]
3. [Hypothesis 3] - Inconclusive, need more data

### What Would Help
- [ ] Access to [specific logs/system]
- [ ] Information about [specific question]
- [ ] Someone with [domain] expertise
- [ ] Permission to [specific action]

### Questions for You

1. Have you seen this issue before?
2. Any recent changes that might be related?
3. Can you provide [specific information]?
4. Should we escalate to [team/person]?

---

Troubleshooting Session Storage

For complex issues, store session data:

Copydocs/troubleshooting/
└── [session-id]/
    ├── session.json          # Problem definition, hypotheses, status
    ├── evidence/             # Captured logs, screenshots, test results
    └── resolution.md         # Final resolution documentation

---

Integration Points

• Use with feature-audit: If you need runtime evidence, trigger /feature-audit for specific verification
• Works with code-archaeologist: For understanding unfamiliar code during investigation
• Complements feature workflow: Can debug issues found during /feature-ship

---

Error Handling

---

Philosophy: "Debug with Evidence, Not Intuition"

This workflow ensures:

• Problems are clearly defined before debugging
• Investigation is systematic, not random
• Hypotheses are tested with evidence
• Fixes are verified, not assumed
• Knowledge is preserved for future issues

No more spinning wheels. No more "try this and see."

---

Let's identify the problem and fix it systematically!