Skip to content
Skills Library
Programming · Review & audit

systematic-debugging

/systematic-debugging

Explicit `/systematic-debugging` reference for a structured root-cause audit. Use only when the user requests this workflow; routine diagnosis stays native.

Licence
MIT
Last repository change
26.10.2026

Assessment and security

100/ 100Class: good
Format25 / 25
Frontmatter with name and description, valid name, description up to 1,024 characters, name matching the folder.
Discoverability25 / 25
Description explains when to use the skill, has a reasonable length and uses third person.
Content35 / 35
At least 150 words and at most 500 lines, headings, step lists, examples or code.
Hygiene15 / 15
No placeholders such as TODO, no Windows paths, with a licence.
Riskno signals detected in the scan
Files in this package
11
Scripts
2
HTML comments
0
URLs in SKILL.md
0
Deprecation

No signals detected. Repository changed on 26.10.2026, without references to retired models or APIs.

Licence

MIT, open: use and modify while retaining author attribution.

What to check before installing
  • 2 scripts in this package. Review them before installing, as Claude may execute them.

Scripts: condition-based-waiting-example.ts, find-polluter.sh

What it does and when to use it

Explicit `/systematic-debugging` reference for a structured root-cause audit. Use only when the user requests this workflow; routine diagnosis stays native.

Original author description

Explicit `/systematic-debugging` reference for a structured root-cause audit. Use only when the user requests this workflow; routine diagnosis stays native.

How it works

  1. Overview
  2. The Iron Law
  3. The Four Phases
  4. Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
  5. your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
  6. Why Speed Arguments Fail
  7. Quick Reference
  8. When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
  9. Supporting Techniques
Original SKILL.md headings · 259 lines, 1,265 words
SKILL.md preview
---
name: systematic-debugging
description: |
  Explicit `/systematic-debugging` reference for a structured root-cause audit.
  Use only when the user requests this workflow; routine diagnosis stays native.
---

# 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.

**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**

## The Iron Law

```
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
```

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

## The Four Phases

You MUST 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
   - They often contain the exact solution
   - Read stack traces completely
   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes

2. **Reproduce Consistently**
   - Can you trigger it reliably?
   - What are the exact steps?
   - Does it happen every time?
   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess

3. **Check Recent Changes**
   - What changed that could cause this?
   - Git diff, recent commits
   - New dependencies, config changes
   - Environmental differences

4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**

   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**

   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
   ```
   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
   THEN investigate that specific component
   ```

   **Example (multi-layer system):**
   ```bash
   # Layer 1: Workflow
   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"

   # Layer 2: Build script
   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"

   # Layer 3: Signing script
   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
   security list-keychains
   security find-identity -v

   # Layer 4: Actual signing
   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
   ```

   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)

5. **Trace Data Flow**

   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**

   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.

   **Quick version:**
   - 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 the pattern before fixing:**

1. **Find Working Examples**
   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
   - What works that's similar to what's broken?

2. **Compare Against References**
   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
   - Don't skim - read every line
   - Understand the pattern fully before applying

3. **Identify Differences**
   - What's different between working and broken?
   - List every difference, however small
   - Don't assume "that can't matter"

4. **Understand Dependencies**
   - What other components does this need?
   - What settings, config, environment?
   - What assumptions does it make?

### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing

**Scientific method:**

1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
   - Write it down
   - Be specific, not vague

2. **Test Minimally**
   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
   - 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

4. **When You Don't Know**
   - Say "I don't understand X"
   - Don't pretend to know
   - Ask for help
   - Research more

### Phase 4: Implementation

**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**

1. **Create Failing Test Case**
   - Simplest possible reproduction
   - Automated test if possible
   - One-off test script if no framework
   - MUST have before fixing
   - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests

2. **Implement Single Fix**
   - Address the root cause identified
   - ONE change at a time
   - No "while I'm here" improvements
   - No bundled refactoring

3. **Verify Fix**
   - Test passes now?
   - No other tests broken?
   - Issue actually resolved?

4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
   - STOP
   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion

5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**

   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere

   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?

   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**

   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.

## 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"
- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**

**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**

**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)

## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong

**Watch for these redirections:**
- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working

**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.

## Why Speed Arguments Fail

"Systematic is slower" is the most common rationalization. The data disagrees:
- Systematic: 15-30 minutes to fix, ~95% first-time fix rate
- Random fixes: 2-3 hours of thrashing, ~40% first-time fix rate, new bugs introduced

"Emergency, no time for process" inverts the truth — emergencies are exactly when guessing is most expensive. Systematic debugging is faster than thrashing, not slower.

## 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 |

## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"

If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:

1. You've completed the process
2. Document what you investigated
3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation

**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.

## Supporting Techniques

These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:

- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling

**Related skills:**
- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success

Files in this package (11)
  • CREATION-LOG.md 4 KB
  • SKILL.md 8 KB
  • condition-based-waiting-example.ts 5 KB
  • condition-based-waiting.md 3 KB
  • defense-in-depth.md 4 KB
  • find-polluter.sh 1 KB
  • root-cause-tracing.md 5 KB
  • test-academic.md 1 KB
  • test-pressure-1.md 2 KB
  • test-pressure-2.md 2 KB
  • test-pressure-3.md 3 KB

Versions

RepositoryScoreLicence
This page · dannykkh/skill-olympus100MIT
magnus919/agent-skills100MIT
FrancoStino/opencode-skills-collection100MIT
foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills100Apache-2.0
GanyuanRan/Aegis100MIT
rootcastleco/rei-skills100MIT
jkaloger/lazyspec100MIT
innei/ryugi100MIT
yusixian/anjian100MIT

Database snapshot: 13.11.2026 · package version ff383c0de12f (SHA-256 digest of the entire package)

Downloads in the last 30 days: 0 · ranking

Report a problem with this skill: harmful content, incorrect descriptions or an author’s removal request.

Similar skills

  • 100systematic-debugging-codex
    Systematic 4-phase debugging with Codex-backed root cause investigation. Use only when the user explicitly asks for the Codex-backed debugging workflow.
  • 95community-systematic-debugging
    Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior. 4-phase root cause investigation — NO fixes without understanding the problem first.
  • 100debug-systematic
    Apply a systematic four-phase debugging workflow when the user asks to debug an issue, investigate a bug, troubleshoot a problem, or find the root cause of unexpected behavior
  • 100code-showcase-systematic-debugging
    Four-phase debugging methodology with root cause analysis. Use when investigating bugs, fixing test failures, or troubleshooting unexpected behavior. Emphasizes NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE FIRST.
  • 100code-showcase-systematic-debugging
    Four-phase debugging methodology with root cause analysis. Use when investigating bugs, fixing test failures, or troubleshooting unexpected behavior. Emphasizes NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE FIRST.
  • 95argentos-systematic-debugging
    Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior. 4-phase root cause investigation — NO fixes without understanding the problem first.

Feedback and reports

Your message goes to Bartosz Sokoliński. An email address is needed only for a reply. See the privacy policy.